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

21–30 of 236 posts

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

#21

Post by oska »

I think the very unhealthy dominance of Facebook will only start to properly recede when countries outside the USA start to block its use. This is a highly predatory company that takes away sovereignty in each nation's cyberspace and it really only makes sense for foreign countries to block it and either let their own national corporate replacements emerge (as China has done) or foster the use of open social networks and protocols (my strong preference).

This doesn't solve the problem for people in the USA of course (well, other nations fostering open social networks will help some). The USA obviously needs to look at antitrust measures to fix the issue at home. But other countries can't afford to wait for that to happen.

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

#22

Post by mynameismonkey »

gonzo41 wrote: post #17
Barrin92 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Small compared to what? It's 80% the land mass of the USA, and the sixth largest country by land mass in the world.

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

#23

Post by btmoney06 »

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…

This is dead on. Moreover, I find it a bit funny that the authors consider WhatsApp to be a social media platform, but not iMessage. Similarly, they consider YouTube to be a social media platform, but not Twitch (or any of the paid services like Netflix). If they were intellectually honest, Facebook's market share would be nowhere near what they claim.

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

#24

Post by oska »

mynameismonkey wrote: post #22
gonzo41 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Small compared to what? It's 80% the land mass of the USA, and the sixth largest country by land mass in the world.

I saw the Washington Post describe Victoria as a small state today (in its Covid-19 coverage of the outbreak there). I went and looked up its size to compare to US states - it's bigger than Minnesota and Utah and all but 11 US states. I doubt the WaPo would refer to Utah as a small state.

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

#25

Post by gonzo41 »

oska wrote: post #24
mynameismonkey wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small compared to what? It's 80% the land mass of the USA, and the sixth largest country by land mass in the world.

I saw the Washington Post describe Victoria as a small state today (in its Covid-19 coverage of the outbreak there). I went and looked up its size to compare to US states - it's bigger than Minnesota and Utah and all but 11 US states. I doubt the WaPo would refer to Utah as a small state.

I think of us as a small country because whilst large in size. we only have 7 largish cities, and 25 million people packed into them. With Sydney and Melbourne having close to 10 million people between them.

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

#26

Post by alexmingoia »

jlmorton wrote: post #18
alexmingoia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Jus…

I don't think the legal code for preventing acquisitions says anything about consumers.

15 USC §18 says "No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."

Nevermind that, let's say it is about protecting consumers. How have consumers been harmed by the Instagram acquisition? Facebook didn't shut them down, substantially change the product, or force users to use their other products. IIRC Facebook reduced the price of WhatsApp by removing the dollar fee.

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

#27

Post by btmoney06 »

kthxbye123 wrote: post #16
alexmingoia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There’s over a hundred and twenty year of antitrust law that says that conduct is improper if it leads to higher prices for consumers. Why does Yale insist that antitrust can apply when prices are 0?

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

#28

Post by cabalamat »

knodi123 wrote: post #5
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?

I think RSS is a better fit.

Or ActivityPub

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

#29

Post by rorykoehler »

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.

I can think of a billion reasons why you're right in theory and wrong in practice.

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

#30

Post by rorykoehler »

btmoney06 wrote: post #23
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…

This is dead on. Moreover, I find it a bit funny that the authors consider WhatsApp to be a social media platform, but not iMessage. Similarly, they consider YouTube to be a social media platform, but not Twitch (or any of the paid services like Netflix). If they were intellectually honest, Facebook's market share would be nowhere near what they claim.

I'm a heavy Apple user and have been for over a decade and still don't understand why iMessage exists? WhatsApp and iMessage aren't comparable.
Post reply on HN