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

41–50 of 236 posts

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

#41

Post by hkai »

oska wrote: post #21

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…

Just to check, between Facebook and WeChat, which company engages more in predatory, racist and violent practices and is complicit in unthinkable brutality and violations of human rights?

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

#42

Post by alexmingoia »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #35
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 paper lists five different things as anticompetitive, why do you disagree with their assessment? Allowing Vine to use your API and then blocking it after Twitter acquired it seems anticompetitive.

Because none of the things besides acquisition is anti-competitive in the context of anti-trust law.

Facebook doesn’t owe competitors their data. It’s absurd to construe not actively helping competitors by giving them your data as “anti-competitive.”

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

#44

Post by alexmingoia »

smt88 wrote: post #38
btmoney06 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Facebook's consumers are businesses, and their price is not 0.

The acquisition didn’t reduce competition for advertisers because Instagram didn’t have ads before Facebook owned them.

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

#45

Post by alexmingoia »

YarickR2 wrote: post #40
rydre wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price in this case is calculated by the amount of Ads you have to see, the effect on mental health because of Facebook's physiological experiments on its users, Facebook not obeying laws of smaller countries where it operates in, Facebook not paying taxes in other countries, owning Instagram - effectively the second largest competitor to Facebook is also owned by Facebook, too late to take anti discriminately actions…

Instagram is a Facebook competitor ? That's a sick joke; those two social networks have less in common than birds and mammals

The Yale paper wants it both ways. If any app with friends/follows is a competitor then there’s plenty of competitors and the acquisition didn’t substantially reduce competition. Yet if only products similar to Facebook are considered competitors then they’ve never acquired a competitor.

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

#46

Post by cambalache »

hkai wrote: post #41
oska wrote: post #21

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…

Just to check, between Facebook and WeChat, which company engages more in predatory, racist and violent practices and is complicit in unthinkable brutality and violations of human rights?

is it a competition? Because nobody is winning. Nobody in the world says, oh please Americans come to fuck us because at least you use lubricant.

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

#47

Post by baryphonic »

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. Facebook’s network effect didn’t stop Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, etc.

It's not a contradiction, since network effects can be unstable over time (e.g. people get older and young people "enter the pipeline," sometimes with different preferences). By the time of the acquisitions, Friendster had disappeared and MySpace was in the throes. Facebook had the network effects at time t=0 and determined that Instagram and then WhatsApp would have the dominant network effects at t=1 and t=2, respectively. I somewhat agree that we shouldn't punish Facebook because they understood Instagram's and WhatsApp's value than Instagram or WhatsApp did, but network effects can be fickle if a company like Facebook doesn't try to co-opt/buy competitors.

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

#48

Post by ikeyany »

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.

This is why they called Victoria a small state:

https://i2.wp.com/australian-population.com/wp-content/uploa...

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

#49

Post by deathgrips »

cambalache wrote: post #46
hkai wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to check, between Facebook and WeChat, which company engages more in predatory, racist and violent practices and is complicit in unthinkable brutality and violations of human rights?

is it a competition? Because nobody is winning. Nobody in the world says, oh please Americans come to fuck us because at least you use lubricant.

How do I save comments?

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

#50

Post by deathgrips »

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.

Doesn't matter. It results in less competition. The government's goal is to promote competition.
Post reply on HN