Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

insights.som.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 236 posts

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#11

Post by Barrin92 »

mrits wrote: post #2

“We can imagine a social network market that worked more like the current phone system: a user of one social network could post and reach friends who were members of different social networks through interoperability protocols.” How about SMTP?

forcing interopariblity and one common social network protocol akin to railroad companies being forced to operate compatible networks would be one of the simplest and straight forward regulations to increase consumer choice and balance out market dominance.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#12

Post by alkibiades »

alexmingoia wrote: post #7

The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything. But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete. It’s a contradiction to say…

the network effects aren't anti-competitive alone. the acquisitions alone aren't anti-competitive.

their combined effect has been for them to be in a monopoly position and prevent any competition.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#13

Post by rbecker »

alexmingoia wrote: post #7

The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything. But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete. It’s a contradiction to say…

> It’s a contradiction to say the network effect protects Facebook but at the same time say they had to buy Instagram because they were successfully competing despite the network effect.

It's not a contradiction if you allow that protection may not be perfect.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#14

Post by alexmingoia »

deathgrips wrote: post #9
alexmingoia wrote: post #7

The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything. But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete. It’s a contradiction to say…

>But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Because now there's less competition.

Instagram didn't have to sell. Less competition isn't the same thing as preventing competition.

For example, imagine three restaurants competing. Two of them make an agreement with a common supplier to shut out the third competitor. That is what I think of as anti-competitive.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#15

Post by alexmingoia »

rbecker wrote: post #13
alexmingoia wrote: post #7

The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything. But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete. It’s a contradiction to say…

> It’s a contradiction to say the network effect protects Facebook but at the same time say they had to buy Instagram because they were successfully competing despite the network effect. It's not a contradiction if you allow that protection may not be perfect.

Then what's the evidence the network effect has protected them from competition?

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#16

Post by kthxbye123 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #14
deathgrips wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Because now there's less competition.

Instagram didn't have to sell. Less competition isn't the same thing as preventing competition. For example, imagine three restaurants competing. Two of them make an agreement with a common supplier to shut out the third competitor. That is what I think of as anti-competitive.

There’s over a hundred and twenty years of antitrust enforcement in this country. Why does HN insist on reinventing antitrust law from their own intuition about what “anti-competitive” means?

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#17

Post by gonzo41 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #11
mrits wrote: post #2

“We can imagine a social network market that worked more like the current phone system: a user of one social network could post and reach friends who were members of different social networks through interoperability protocols.” How about SMTP?

forcing interopariblity and one common social network protocol akin to railroad companies being forced to operate compatible networks would be one of the simplest and straight forward regulations to increase consumer choice and balance out market dominance.

Just for a laugh, have a read about train rail gauges. You think in Australia a small country, this would be a simple problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge_in_Australia

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#18

Post by jlmorton »

alexmingoia wrote: post #14
deathgrips wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Because now there's less competition.

Instagram didn't have to sell. Less competition isn't the same thing as preventing competition. For example, imagine three restaurants competing. Two of them make an agreement with a common supplier to shut out the third competitor. That is what I think of as anti-competitive.

Antitrust legislation is not designed to protect other companies, it's designed to protect consumers.

In the United States, when the Justice Department blocks a merger, it is not simply deciding to disallow the merger. It does not have the power to do so. Instead, the actual mechanism is via antitrust lawsuit.

If the merger is likely to reduce competition to such an extent that it would harm consumers, and if the Justice Department is so inclined, the Department files an antitrust lawsuit to block it.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#19

Post by fsckboy »

alexmingoia wrote: post #14
deathgrips wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Because now there's less competition.

Instagram didn't have to sell. Less competition isn't the same thing as preventing competition. For example, imagine three restaurants competing. Two of them make an agreement with a common supplier to shut out the third competitor. That is what I think of as anti-competitive.

? but you are wrong. Buying your competitors is only possible because you offer them more than they agree they are worth. Why would you do that? because reducing competition will earn you more money through your anticompetitive actions.
Post reply on HN