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

171–180 of 236 posts

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

#171

Post by camgunz »

scarface74 wrote: post #147
blocked_again wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's heavily regulated by parents.

So now we need the government to treat us all like children who are incapable of making our own rational decisions?

People are sometimes capable of making rational decisions, but there's a whole industry (advertising, maybe you've heard of it) dedicated to working against that.

Think of really any common sense regulation:

- Can't use leaded gasoline

- Can't use asbestos

- Must wear a seat belt

- Cannot drive while intoxicated

If people always behaved well, we wouldn't need laws. They don't, so we do.

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

#172

Post by loceng »

brlewis wrote: post #164
scarface74 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever thought that the reason Facebook is successful is because people choose to use it? No one is forced to use social media.

> Have you ever thought that the reason Facebook is successful is because people choose to use it? Yes, I have thought that, before I knew any better. Now I know that Facebook became successful by making people think that other people wanted them to use Facebook. E.g. http://www.krist0ph3r.com/2009/06/reminder-kristopher-invite...

Yup.. It's how trust is built, familiarizing you with a person or a thing - like a brand - by seeing or hearing about it enough times, automatically builds trust with it - digital advertising which organizations have taken advantage of this mechanism to shallowly in a very shallow, cheap way, manipulate people - tied into network effects that the internet as a platform allows to be scaled.

The article you linked to reminds me that Mark Zuckerberg's moral compass consists of:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks

It's particularly odd to me that he's quoted 'trust me' as if the concept of trust is foreign, non-existent,

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

#173

Post by netcan »

justaguyhere wrote: post #98
netcan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small countries can ban facebook from doing certain things. Ultimately, some sovereignty exists even in global commerce. If New Zealand made (eg) political advertising, targeted advertising, or such ilegal, Facebook would stop doing it in New Zealand. That is treating the symptom, but it is not totally ineffective. Treating the problem is dealing with the monopoly. The current state of antitrust laws, norms and regul…

Maybe future generations will realize how shitty FB is and stop using it (one can hope!) A bigger problem is FB owns much better products like WhatsApp - it is easy to quit FB than WhatsApp in my opinion

None of these are easy to quit because of network effects.

Rick has to use FB because his grandkids' photos are there. Morty uses whatsapp because his soccer club posts practice times there. Network effects are essentially like infrastructure.

The problem isn't shitty FB. FB can be as shitty as it wants to be. The problem is their power, especially as a media company.

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

#174

Post by scarface74 »

brlewis wrote: post #168
scarface74 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s basically advertising 101. I remember being taught that in a marketing class in graduate school back in 2001. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-bandwagon-advertisi...

No, advertising 101 is vague lies like "America's favorite mascara". The more specific lie that "Kristopher invited you to use Facebook" takes it to a new level.

So let’s go with Mary Kay and Tupperware....

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

#175

Post by scarface74 »

camgunz wrote: post #171
scarface74 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now we need the government to treat us all like children who are incapable of making our own rational decisions?

People are sometimes capable of making rational decisions, but there's a whole industry (advertising, maybe you've heard of it) dedicated to working against that. Think of really any common sense regulation: - Can't use leaded gasoline - Can't use asbestos - Must wear a seat belt - Cannot drive while intoxicated If people always behaved well, we wouldn't need laws. They don't, so we do.

All of those cases cause external harm to other people. Logging into FB and posting memes doesn’t.

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

#176

Post by scarface74 »

netcan wrote: post #170
scarface74 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you mean the solution to the FB “problem” is people using their own free will and it doesn’t involve the Nanny State?

Nanny-state/libertarian arguments against antitrust are misguided. I am against a nanny state. Deeply against it. It gets abused of power. is invariably useless and freedom is important for its own sake. Monopolies extend these problems into the commercial realm. Nanny companies instead of Nanny State. Facebook is worse than most state media monopolies. It's like living in a company town and complaining about the nan…

Facebook doesn’t have coercive power to force me to do anything. The government does.

It’s not Libertarianism. It’s a fundamental distrust of governments.

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

#177

Post by brlewis »

scarface74 wrote: post #174
brlewis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, advertising 101 is vague lies like "America's favorite mascara". The more specific lie that "Kristopher invited you to use Facebook" takes it to a new level.

So let’s go with Mary Kay and Tupperware....

AFAIK invitations to Mary Kay and Tupperware parties are not lies. Your friend actually does want you to go.

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

#178

Post by jeffreyrogers »

scarface74 wrote: post #131
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't that just demonstrate that the market is distortionary then? If they can't IPO and they can't be profitable on their own then they aren't creating real value and so the existence of Facebook and other companies that act as acquirers is value destroying rather than value creating.

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

#179

Post by rickbutton »

scarface74 wrote: post #174
brlewis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, advertising 101 is vague lies like "America's favorite mascara". The more specific lie that "Kristopher invited you to use Facebook" takes it to a new level.

So let’s go with Mary Kay and Tupperware....

The equivalent is if a Tupperware salesperson tried to sell you tupperware by showing you a _doctored_ image of your friend buying tuperware while literally holding a sign saying "Hey [Your Name], buy this too!".

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

#180

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> 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 data collection problem is basically independent of the antitrust problem. The only real overlap is that you can't avoid the data collection when the service is a monopoly you can't avoid doing business with, but the general solution -- more competition -- solves that anyway.

What's really needed is this:

> The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's graph.

Adversarial interoperability shares the network effect. It lets competitors bootstrap off the incumbent instead of starting from scratch, so then you get more competitors.

Post reply on HN