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

261–270 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#261

Post by kickscondor »

saddlerustle wrote: post #222
ghufran_syed wrote: post #155

I feel like instead of pushing for the companies to separate, congress should pass laws mandating [adversarial interoperability]( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... ). Then the data (including the social graph) really would belong to the users, and facebook would have to compete with multiple other “social network clients” that would rapidly emerge. Facebook would lose some monopoly profi…

There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.

I think there is a lack of imagination here.

Perhaps a "social graph" shouldn't belong to any company. The concept itself might be anti-privacy.

Perhaps it's time to move back to simpler things like OPML. (Which people seem more comfortable sharing freely - not sure if that's still a "social graph" tho.)

Perhaps specific relationship details shouldn't be housed in the social network - just the permission to follow.

Perhaps companies who house a "social graph" should be regulated - similar to what is done with medical data. It should be a toxic substance.

I just think we're a long way from doing this right and there are a lot of untried options - and I lack imagination as well.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#262

Post by bananamerica »

mrkramer wrote: post #101

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…

> It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is

FTC seems to be arguing that at least part of the reason why that is the case was the employment of illegal tactics by Facebook.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#263

Post by lotsofpulp »

samfisher83 wrote: post #249
katbyte wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are there not multiple phone companies now instead of just one?

They have all pretty much merged back into AT&T or Verizon. Those two companies together would be the original MA Bell.

And Centurylink.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#264

Post by dybber »

crazygringo wrote: post #199

Honestly, while I have my doubts about this succeeding, it nevertheless feels like the big tech suit most likely to succeed. Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search com…

Amazon can be split on other dimensions, e.g. AWS as a separate company, delivery as a separate company.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#265

Post by hyperdimension »

rd wrote: post #221
packthetop wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copy+pasting the rules is even more boring, just move on

I feel like there's a relevant XKCD here about the irrelevance of commenting on irrelevance but I'm struggling to remember which.

Well, it's not all that relevant to the conversation at hand, anyway... :)

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#266

Post by AnimalMuppet »

fuzxi wrote: post #217

Anyone who follows these kinds of suits: does this have teeth? What outcomes are we most likely to see as a result of this?

Yes, it has teeth - for some values of "teeth".

Yes, the FTC wins lawsuits like this. Not always, but some of the time. And if they win, they can in fact ask for Facebook to be broken up, and get it.

And even if they don't win, Facebook has to take it seriously, which takes time and energy from executives. They have to at least consider the chance that the FTC will win, which means that they might think about a settlement rather than rolling the dice on a trial. How much that settlement changes things depends on how the sides negotiate, which depends (at least in part) on how much confidence each side has that they would win.

Does this suit have enough merit to succeed? I have no idea.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#267

Post by s3r3nity »

crazygringo wrote: post #199

Honestly, while I have my doubts about this succeeding, it nevertheless feels like the big tech suit most likely to succeed. Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search com…

I have my doubts, simply because the markets would be significantly disrupted if the government can retroactively “unapprove” a merger over a decade (or longer) after the fact - AFTER the government previously approved it.

You’re better off trying to right the wrongs through litigation that sets a better market environment.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#268

Post by bilal4hmed »

mrlala wrote: post #203
bilal4hmed wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems its no competition because people like it not because there are no other options, because there are plenty

But my point is "it's the norm". Either you use WhatsApp or you don't talk to people. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, really.. I think "monopolies" have their place in standardizing things that we do and it makes it convenient. (Side note: if fucking Apple would open up iMessage on android/windows they would OWN the chat market in a matter of minutes in the US) But there does get to a point where you cannot s…

Isnt that the case of network effects though ?

Facebook started off in a market with Orkut, Myspace, Friendster and along came Path, Twitter, Google+. Facebook had network effects and people gravitated towards it.

So this is basically saying network effect is bad. You cant get too popular.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#269

Post by stinkytaco »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #232
baby wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? WhatsApp today is a great messaging app platform with end-to-end encryption.

What exactly makes it 'great? No password access, login through SMS which can be intercepted, no 2FA, no access from another device while you phone is dead, compresses video to 2 pixels, no real crypto auth to speak of. It does not seem to have any features that are better than Signal, telegram, messenger, or a dozen other apps. Why is it worth any awards or special consideration, besides being popular?

> besides being popular

You're not wrong about any of this, but that final phrase weighs far more for most people than anything else. It is a communications app after all, and is only useful if there are people to communicate with.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#270

Post by __al__ »

jb1991 wrote: post #119
fishtacos wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet they can do so very easily at the flip of a button, so to speak. The capability exists, and simply because potential competitors choose to not compete in the same space is what makes WhatsApp a monopoly? See Skype, for example - the largest market penetration for a period of time and practically no one uses them any more. They were video-centric, yet the user base is already there for an extension into a primaril…

And had they been able to, what do you think would’ve happened to Skype had it been acquired by Facebook back when it was the main game in town? I think that’s the point.

Instagram was not the "main game in town" when Facebook acquired them. It was one of many photo sharing/editing apps and had far less market penetration than it does today. Why should Facebook be punished for acquiring a promising app and turning it into what it is today by integrating it into its ecosystem?

Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time of acquisition it was far from a sure thing and it's safe to say that without Facebook resources Instagram would not be what it is today.

Post reply on HN