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

131–140 of 236 posts

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

#131

Post by scarface74 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #114
scarface74 wrote: post #105

The question is how does this “monopoly” hurt consumers? It’s social media . I use FB, just like most of the rest of the world. But if it died tomorrow the world would go on. Besides, anti trust in the US is focused on consumer harm. How does a Facebook’s monopoly hurt consumers?

I've been thinking about that lately, since you're right that the way anti-trust law is currently interpreted there has to be a consumer harm. I think the solution is something like this: consumers use not just Faceboook, but other products and services as well, some of which are not invented yet. By buying up early stage companies that potentially harm Facebook's core business, or by leveraging its large network eff…

So who would buy these companies if not some other company where the a acquisition would have “synergies”? Why would VCs invest in companies if they didn’t expect an acquisition? The chance of a company actually making it to a successful IPO is slim.

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

#132

Post by eloisant »

scarface74 wrote: post #129
blocked_again wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. Go and read Hooked book. The shitty things Silicon Valley does to keep users addicted to their social media apps would blow your mind. Facebook is a net negative to the society. The reason people are using their products are because they are addicted. Not because it's making their life bettter. It's like drugs. Atleast the drug companies have ethics to not give you some unless you continue paying money. Fucking…

And that could describe, alcohol, weed, sweets, gambling....

Yes, that why those things are either illegal or heavily regulated.

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

#133

Post by beagle3 »

scarface74 wrote: post #119
beagle3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook didn’t have any adverts before it had them. Neither did google, or for that matter cable TV. Unless you have inside knowledge about Instagram’s business plans, it is reasonable to assume they would have had ads sooner or later, as no other monetization scheme seems sustainable for this kind of “product”. The nipping of competition in the bud does not make it any less anti competitive.

Cable TV has always had advertising. I really wish this myth would die.

I was under the impression that it didn't in the early days in the US. For sure, in several other countries, it started without ads, and some channels stayed ad-free whereas others did get ads and getting more of them (though, nothing quite as horrible as what the US has these days -- on a recent visit to New York, my kids tried to watch Cartoon Network on the Hotel Television, and it was probably 30% ads -- never seen anything remotely close to that in UK, Germany and other countries I visit)

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

#134

Post by Nextgrid »

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…

The problem is that the countries most likely to block it are also the ones most likely to replace it with much worse.

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

#135

Post by scarface74 »

beagle3 wrote: post #128
scarface74 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If M and A becomes harder, why would VCs invest? There have only been two YC companies that have ever gone public. I doubt that YC invested in any of its companies to produce “lifestyle businesses”.

If M&A became harder, more companies would go public; or stay private and distribute profits as dividends. But the problem is not M&A on its own; the problem is that through M&A, big players are able to stifle competition. I'm sure it's possible to define a reasonable law (about company size, market size and kind) that would make it much harder for today's Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon from acquiring potenti…

Apple buys a company at least every couple of weeks. Most companies that Apple buys would never be successful products as an IPO. They were never products that would have ipo’d

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

#136

Post by cheesecracker »

Whatever. Why should companies help out their rivals? To this day, nobody is forced to use Facebook.

I am not against helping rivals, synergies, whatever. But to claim it is unfair not to help rivals seems silly.

Invariably, if somebody is successful, some people will emerge claiming it was all unfair gains.

Not that I liked Facebook's approach, especially in the early days they were harvesting address books. It's not really an uncommon practice, though. The key point is, again, that nobody is forced to use them.

It may be a bit more difficult to avoid their tracking on web sites, but then it is on those web sites not to use the Facebook scripts. And if you really care, you can install an AdBlocker.

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

#137

Post by boomboomsubban »

scarface74 wrote: post #121
boomboomsubban wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can I call up your company and get a list of your customers to create a competing service?

How is that remotely similar?

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

#138

Post by scarface74 »

beagle3 wrote: post #133
scarface74 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable TV has always had advertising. I really wish this myth would die.

I was under the impression that it didn't in the early days in the US. For sure, in several other countries, it started without ads, and some channels stayed ad-free whereas others did get ads and getting more of them (though, nothing quite as horrible as what the US has these days -- on a recent visit to New York, my kids tried to watch Cartoon Network on the Hotel Television, and it was probably 30% ads -- never se…

One of the early nationally available cable tv channels was TBS. They always had ads. Besides the original purpose of cable was to transmit network TV in remote areas.

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

#139

Post by op03 »

ankit219 wrote: post #92

Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies, while this is a demand side monopoly, and would be a tricky case for anti trust to prove. If the mandate is to do what is best for customers, then the best solution I can think of is to let FB function as one entity but toughen the norms on data collection. The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's grap…

Nov 3 will decide a lot of stuff.

I would guess if Trump returns and the Dems take the House and the Senate, expect all nuance and smartness to go out the window.

Post reply on HN