Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 177 posts

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#111

Post by bart_spoon »

matkoniecz wrote: post #51
Cymruboogaloo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook stole pretty much wholesale, Stories from Snap, The timeline from Twitter, and now reels is its Tiktok clone. They've recently introduced "rooms" which is its theft of Houseparty not Zoom which everyone thought. Facebook is a horrible company which hasn't come up with and original idea in years. It now uses its "sign in with facebook" button to see which apps people are using before copying them completely a…

I would be happy about FB dying, but what is wrong with copying good interface ideas? I hate FB, but I hate making such stuff patentable/copyrightable/unreusable/uncopiable even more.

> I would be happy about FB dying, but what is wrong with copying good interface ideas?

Nothing, in my opinion. The problem arises when a company is so large that simply implementing a good interface idea completely destroys the value of the original. The best example is Snapchat. Snapchat got big, fast, because its main conceit, while simple, was pretty unique. As soon as Instagram implemented it, Snapchat fell off a cliff, because why use Snapchat when you can just use Instagram?

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#112

Post by johannes1234321 »

srsQtho00 wrote: post #105
pyrrhotech wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is not predatory to me. It has greatly improved my life from a convenience and cost perspective. They also recently raised their wages for all warehouse employees such that it's one of the best places to work for unskilled labor in many locations. Amazon has made many small time merchants rich through their platform, and it's software engineers are among the highest paid in the industry, so I have to strongly…

Serious question: is convenience for others the only bar we have to step over before enabling a certain type of utilitarian role? Precisely quantified utilitarianism is the way? Quantified by who? Is our math, purposefully constrained for consistency, the right tool for that job? What long term impact on those workers and society does creating so many low-effort monotonous jobs have? Is there an upside besides expans…

It matches the Zeitgeist of individualism we are in, which is destructing politics. Politics are about finding a common path for a society.

A world where I optimizer for myself is very different, from one where I optimizer for society.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#113

Post by pb7 »

torben-friis wrote: post #102
pwim wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match Group owns and operates several online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, and PlentyOfFish. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group

are all of those used? I'm not American, but here tinder seems to be the only option whatsoever (aside of the lgtb alternatives).

Yes. People tend to be on multiple platforms simultaneously.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#114

Post by offtop5 »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #49
durnygbur wrote: post #27

Facebook platform is evil and no one doubts it at this point. Amazon is predatory for everyone - merchants, warehouse employees, IT employees, job candidates. Google screwed the recruitment irrevocably and what's worse every minor shop attempts to copy their processes. Microsoft temporarily plays the nice guy. Then we have this whole dating thing entirely owned by one media hegemon. All together pay minuscle taxes. .…

>Then we have this whole dating thing entirely owned by one media hegemon. This scares the hell out of me that one mega conglomerate with it's algorithms has control over your procreation and deep knowledge of your sex life, all linked to your real identity. Personally, I have no dog in this fight since I gave up on online dating and got good at IRL dating(pre-COVID) but I am aware of plenty of men willing to throw t…

>, I would regulate the information dating apps collect to the same standards as patients' national healthcare information is handled(in the EU; I don't know about the US/UK but I heard it's not all rozy there).

In the case of Grindr they released user HIV status information which is literally medical data.

>Personally, I have no dog in this fight since I gave up on online dating and got good at IRL dating(pre-COVID) but I am aware of plenty of men willing to throw their cash and intimate data at these corporations for the hope of meeting someone.

Good for you, it's a giant scam( See FTC Sues Match). I also gave up on these apps and started meeting amazing people in real life. It's also much less stressful to disconnect from the social media matrix.

I put vastly less effort into meeting people now and I found myself actually getting approached last year. I've found greater peace. Social Media is a very bad thing for most people. You waste tons of time you could be spending on other things. Doesn't help people tend to be much meaner online. Again , why deal with that.

With Corona I've been trying to focus more on learning music , but I'm fairly optimistic next year things will be somewhat normal.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#115

Post by srsQtho00 »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #112
srsQtho00 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: is convenience for others the only bar we have to step over before enabling a certain type of utilitarian role? Precisely quantified utilitarianism is the way? Quantified by who? Is our math, purposefully constrained for consistency, the right tool for that job? What long term impact on those workers and society does creating so many low-effort monotonous jobs have? Is there an upside besides expans…

It matches the Zeitgeist of individualism we are in, which is destructing politics. Politics are about finding a common path for a society. A world where I optimizer for myself is very different, from one where I optimizer for society.

What is it?

Who is we?

What common path are you referring to? What are its attributes in terms of maximizing individual time economy?

IMO that’s what the sharing through social effort is. Maximizing each individuals time economy.

Instead we seem to be maximizing time economy for people who can pay to externalize effort.

We’re really not optimizing for self by taking on more hours for less pay to keep Wall Street up.

Which to me ties right in with creating low effort jobs. Rather than decrease the amount of real work by expanding access to that work.

Let’s just hand out mops and brooms. Heard there’s coal to shovel out east!

Who knows, having more time may make things like cleaning a toilet and picking up packages seem less onerous.

We’re optimizing for a minority to be coddled by the effort of the majority. And being paid off with a fraction of the real output given the math I see.

Based upon hand me down stories from people with a very different intuition for quantification and science.

Would someone explain to me how kowtowing to such a social reality makes any sense scientifically?

Westerners all on about “science!” could stand to take a long look at their actual beliefs and application of agency.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#116

Post by mavsman »

> "Your only job is to get an extra minute,” the former employee told the subcommittee. “It’s immoral. They don’t ask where it’s coming from. They can monetize a minute of activity at a certain rate. So the only metric is getting another minute.”

Not surprising, but a very interesting quote nonetheless.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#117

Post by waylandsmithers »

pyrrhotech wrote: post #89
durnygbur wrote: post #27

Facebook platform is evil and no one doubts it at this point. Amazon is predatory for everyone - merchants, warehouse employees, IT employees, job candidates. Google screwed the recruitment irrevocably and what's worse every minor shop attempts to copy their processes. Microsoft temporarily plays the nice guy. Then we have this whole dating thing entirely owned by one media hegemon. All together pay minuscle taxes. .…

Amazon is not predatory to me. It has greatly improved my life from a convenience and cost perspective. They also recently raised their wages for all warehouse employees such that it's one of the best places to work for unskilled labor in many locations. Amazon has made many small time merchants rich through their platform, and it's software engineers are among the highest paid in the industry, so I have to strongly…

As a parent who has basically never had to think about running out of diapers thanks to Amazon, I couldn't agree more (and sure, there are other companies who could do this).

This has nothing to do with anti-trust but out of all the major tech corps Facebook really seems the most like a big tobacco company- sure they are adding value to the economy and ostensibly giving individual consumers something they want, but as a society we'd generally be better off if it just kind of went away.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#118

Post by mywittyname »

torben-friis wrote: post #102
pwim wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match Group owns and operates several online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, and PlentyOfFish. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group

are all of those used? I'm not American, but here tinder seems to be the only option whatsoever (aside of the lgtb alternatives).

They all appeal to slightly different types of users. Like the same company selling different brands of chips.

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#119

Post by chroma »

durnygbur wrote: post #27

Facebook platform is evil and no one doubts it at this point. Amazon is predatory for everyone - merchants, warehouse employees, IT employees, job candidates. Google screwed the recruitment irrevocably and what's worse every minor shop attempts to copy their processes. Microsoft temporarily plays the nice guy. Then we have this whole dating thing entirely owned by one media hegemon. All together pay minuscle taxes. .…

OK, now judge governments by those same standards. I don't see Facebook invading Iraq on false pretenses, or imprisoning people for the crime of smoking marijuana, or shooting an unarmed guy for failing to follow conflicting commands.[1]

Hopefully now you understand where the libertarians and ancaps are coming from. It's not that corporations are good. It's that governments are so much worse.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

Re: Facebook is a monopoly that buys, copies, kills competitors: antitrust committee

#120

Post by mthoms »

waylandsmithers wrote: post #117
pyrrhotech wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is not predatory to me. It has greatly improved my life from a convenience and cost perspective. They also recently raised their wages for all warehouse employees such that it's one of the best places to work for unskilled labor in many locations. Amazon has made many small time merchants rich through their platform, and it's software engineers are among the highest paid in the industry, so I have to strongly…

As a parent who has basically never had to think about running out of diapers thanks to Amazon, I couldn't agree more (and sure, there are other companies who could do this). This has nothing to do with anti-trust but out of all the major tech corps Facebook really seems the most like a big tobacco company- sure they are adding value to the economy and ostensibly giving individual consumers something they want, but a…

Interesting that you mentioned diapers. This is a quote from page 398 of the subcommittee report -

>The Subcommittee’s investigation identified several instances in which a dominant platform was pricing goods or services below-cost in order to drive out rivals and capture the market. For example, documents produced during the investigation revealed that Amazon had been willing to lose $200 million in a single quarter in order to pressure Diapers.com, a firm it had recognized as its most significant rival in the category. Amazon cut prices and introduced steep promotions, prompting a pricing war that eventually weakened Diapers.com. Amazon then purchased the company, eliminating its competitor and subsequently cutting back the discounts and promotions it had introduced.

I'm curious... After reading that, do you still feel the same way about Amazon?

Price might not mater to many on HN but to millions of people it does.

Post reply on HN