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

FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#101

Post by mrkramer »

This doesn't make sense who authorized Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions at the first place? FTC [1]

It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is.... I look at you MySpace and Twitter.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c...

"The Federal Trade Commission has closed its nonpublic investigation of Facebook's proposed acquisition of Instagram, Inc., without taking any action. Accordingly, the deal may now proceed as proposed."

"The Commission vote to close the investigation was 5-0."

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#102

Post by ipsocannibal »

ferdowsi wrote: post #86

If you work at Facebook it's time to seriously consider leaving to avoid damage to your own brand. Future employers are going to be scrutinizing your record and will ask you difficult questions about why you stuck by Facebook despite an overwhelming consensus that they are damaging to the global social fabric.

Sticking by Facebook now might be seen as a desirable trait in the eyes of some future employers. I'm looking at you Oracle.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#103

Post by [deleted] »

easytiger wrote: post #89
lbsnake7 wrote: post #30

When Facebook first went public, an older relative asked me if he should invest in Facebook. My only insight was being an internet user at the time and I said no, there was no reason that Facebook wouldn’t be another MySpace. Facebook's only value was their users and users were historically very finicky and moved around platforms at will. I argued that Facebook would make no money and wouldn’t be around in a couple o…

I first bought after the clearly emotionally driven price dip at just under $20. It was obvious no one looked at the amount of hard cash they pulled in, and thought using their emotions.

[deleted]

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#104

Post by CabSauce »

lbsnake7 wrote: post #30

When Facebook first went public, an older relative asked me if he should invest in Facebook. My only insight was being an internet user at the time and I said no, there was no reason that Facebook wouldn’t be another MySpace. Facebook's only value was their users and users were historically very finicky and moved around platforms at will. I argued that Facebook would make no money and wouldn’t be around in a couple o…

Wrong? No, just early. Yahoo and AOL were really big and growing... until they weren't.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#105

Post by closeparen »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #49
nickpp wrote: post #35

Monopoly of what? Some other social networks I use every day or so: Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok and various forums and communities like this one, which in my mind are pretty similar to a social network. And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams. Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?

I'll give an easy example: Requiring users to have a Facebook account to use their Oculus device.

Having a Facebook account is a symbolic/emotional injury to a tech contrarian, but I don’t see the courts particularly caring about that. It’s not like you have to actually spend any time or money on it.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#106

Post by rhizome »

nickpp wrote: post #35

Monopoly of what? Some other social networks I use every day or so: Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok and various forums and communities like this one, which in my mind are pretty similar to a social network. And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams. Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?

You might read up on the Trusts era that brought about the Sherman Act[1]. Trains? Horse carriages and wagons were still available, not to mention boats. However, these are not equal modes of travel, though they are "similar" in that they are transportation, and so it's not about internet-based communities per se.

It's the fact that Facebook is "Facebook" that is the problem. That you can't imagine Facebook's equal being viable in any way, other than to mention the wagons and horses of the internet. This is not to comment on a level of sophistication, but features. What can you sell on TikTok through TikTok? It's a category error to equate them with FB. Facebook has cultivated this state of affairs, and they have gone out of their way to interfere with the success of companies it views as competition.[2]

This is even before we get to the use of Facebook to create negative externalities, for which it provides powerful tools. On purpose.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890#...

2. https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/in-antitrust-hearing-zucke...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#107

Post by kache_ »

easytiger wrote: post #94
annadane wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the hell is HN so downvote happy?

Reddit is here. It has been a swift decline notable in the last year or so. Sadly. Even fairly uncontroversial assertions of fact are downvoted frequently

you know you are on orange reddit right?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#108

Post by arrosenberg »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #18

> ... Facebook has maintained its monopoly position by buying up companies that present competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals that Facebook does not or cannot acquire Imagine if FB was broken up like old school monopolies. That would definitely open field to a lot of smaller social media startups. I am worried about consumer privacy impacts becau…

I actually disagree. Regulating a single giant company becomes an exercise in compliance, which American governments are absolutely terrible at. The single giant company has the resources to fight any action that could existentially threaten it. This winds up in its' own set of abuses.

In a robust market of smaller players the regulatory agencies can stick to rulemaking, investigation, and enforcement (civil fines/prosecutions), which is what they are great at. Smaller players don't have the resources to compete with the government and force them into regulatory trench warfare.

This is similar to the situation with the IRS — they spend most of their time auditing EITC cases, and other issues related to poor and middle class people. They don't have the resources to collect on the billionaires who have enough power to fight the government to attrition.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#109

Post by bilal4hmed »

jb1991 wrote: post #51
nickpp wrote: post #35

Monopoly of what? Some other social networks I use every day or so: Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok and various forums and communities like this one, which in my mind are pretty similar to a social network. And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams. Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?

> iMessage, Slack, Teams These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, among other things.

Line, Viber, Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.....there is so much competition in the messaging space.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#110

Post by rhizome »

closeparen wrote: post #105
SkyPuncher wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give an easy example: Requiring users to have a Facebook account to use their Oculus device.

Having a Facebook account is a symbolic/emotional injury to a tech contrarian, but I don’t see the courts particularly caring about that. It’s not like you have to actually spend any time or money on it.

Is that actually a criteria in antitrust?
Post reply on HN