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

71–80 of 236 posts

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

#71

Post by blackoil »

mav3rick wrote: post #63
alexmingoia wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the long run, this has stifled innovation. No social startup gets funding, as FB either crushes them or buys them out for cheap.

"Cheap" is not an adjective which people used to describe those acquisitions at the moment.

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

#72

Post by fx32s »

deathgrips wrote: post #66
jakequade wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world is having geo-specific social networks run by corporations a good outcome? "Like China" is a pretty bad north star for almost any country.

Why would it be worse than Facebook?

A state regulated and censored siloed system where you can't communicate across borders hardly seems like the thing to strive for if you want to displace FB.

edited to reword as to not assume intentions of op

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

#73

Post by BraveSnoo1028 »

fx32s wrote: post #70
BraveSnoo1028 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't bring value to a significant share of people. You don't think other sites can provide the same kind of value, while being far more respectful of your privacy and better reflecting the values of a country's culture? I sure as hell would prefer a German Facebook ra…

I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would want to switch however I think once these platforms grow they would hit similar problems: * To operate in multiple countries so people can stay connected you have to abide by local laws even if they don't match the typical values. * Social media is inherently wi…

> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos)

The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc.

> I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition

I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population.

> While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice

There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook.

> The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms

I can't take you seriously. You must be joking.

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

#74

Post by neilwilson »

Facebook always reminds me of a modern version of Compulink CIX - which spent a lot of its time keeping the rest of the Internet out of its internal bulletin board back in the early days of Internet access.

Facebook posts not showing up on the search engines and hidden behind a sign up "pay with your privacy"-wall are very equivalent.

CIX forums still exist, but they are nowhere near as influential as they once were. Perhaps Facebook will go the same way.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

fx32s wrote: post #70
BraveSnoo1028 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't bring value to a significant share of people. You don't think other sites can provide the same kind of value, while being far more respectful of your privacy and better reflecting the values of a country's culture? I sure as hell would prefer a German Facebook ra…

I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would want to switch however I think once these platforms grow they would hit similar problems: * To operate in multiple countries so people can stay connected you have to abide by local laws even if they don't match the typical values. * Social media is inherently wi…

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by fx32s »

BraveSnoo1028 wrote: post #73
fx32s wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would want to switch however I think once these platforms grow they would hit similar problems: * To operate in multiple countries so people can stay connected you have to abide by local laws even if they don't match the typical values. * Social media is inherently wi…

> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos) The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. > I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre…

> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc.

You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems.

> I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population. > There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook.

I don't claim the US has the optimal system here but I think it's dangerous to claim to know what people want under the guise that they don't know what they are doing. People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change.

> I can't take you seriously. You must be joking.

I failed to add enough context but I was mainly talking about advertisement based companies that chose this monetisation path. Having worked at start-ups I'm highly confident that many of them don't have security and/or privacy (anonymity) as a first (or second or third) priority. FB has made grave errors here but I'm not sure I trust "random FB replacer" any more given FB is under a magnifying glass not with people watching their every move.

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

#77

Post by oska »

fx32s wrote: post #72
deathgrips wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be worse than Facebook?

A state regulated and censored siloed system where you can't communicate across borders hardly seems like the thing to strive for if you want to displace FB. edited to reword as to not assume intentions of op

Please don't misrepresent me.

In no place in my comment did I describe WeChat as better to FB (and I'm not interested in taking a position either way).

Nor was I promoting this:

> A state regulated and censored siloed system where you can't communicate across borders

Quite the opposite. I made it quite clear that my strong preference was for the fostering of open social networks & protocols.

* edit: the parent commenter edited their comment after my reply without noting the edit.

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

#78

Post by danielheath »

jakequade wrote: post #58
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…

In what world is having geo-specific social networks run by corporations a good outcome? "Like China" is a pretty bad north star for almost any country.

I quite like the geo-specific mastodon instances I have seen (eg cloud island for NZ).

For one thing, their moderation only needs to comply with local norms and laws - no need to ban e.g. “female-presenting nipples” unless your community actually wants to.

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

#79

Post by rpastuszak »

fx32s wrote: post #76
BraveSnoo1028 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos) The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. > I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre…

> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems. > I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all…

> People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change.

This is why populists or platforms like FB make sure that people either don’t know that things can change or that they already live in the best version of the reality and, well, everyone else has it worse.

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

#80

Post by rpastuszak »

praptak wrote: post #62
fx32s wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how having national backed social media platforms to the likes china does is a better alternative for end users compared to facebook. If you are a proponent for open speech this will accomplish the opposite since it simplifies state issued censorship. I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't b…

If it's something like BBC then I still prefer it to a private monopoly. BBC is technically national but at the same time pretty independent in its reporting.

As an outsider who has spent the past 7 years in the UK, I feel like the definition of “pretty independent” has become a bit more fluid.

But yeah, it’d be nice if my taxes were spent on the problems we’re discussing here, rather than giving people access to cheaper Tim Tams.

Post reply on HN