Not sure if I am the only one feeling this way, but I hope for the death of facebook (at least in its current form). I feel they are a net negative for society and have done enough shady things to deserve that tag. Disinformation, election hacking, free basics (aka attempted non net neutral free internet in India) marketing it as a service to humanity. Zuck is undeniably smart but has failed time and time again to make the moral right decisions, right from the start of facebook.
FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
321–330 of 736 posts
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#322This 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…
I thought new evidence came to light that FB used illegally obtained metrics about IG and Whatsapp that allowed them inside information about the accusations.
Something about the FB mobile app siphoning off mobile data about other app usage
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#323Would be interesting to see a modern day trust busting, wonder how deeply embedded Facebook's infrastructure / P&Ps is for Whatsapp development.
Unless they rewrote Whatsapp from ground up, the two platforms are not mixed. Whatsapp is written in Erlang where Facebook has transitioned from PHP to Hack to the best of my knowledge.
I don't know how much they did with Whatsapp, but I do know they integrated the Facebook ad serving platform into Whatsapp. Breaking up Facebook and Whatsapp would cost Whatsapp that ad serving platform, which is probably nontrivial.
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On one hand, forcing Facebook to open up its social graph would have serious privacy implications. There shouldn't be much additional privacy concern with a Facebook user saying "I trust user Alice and service example.com, so please send all my posts to alice@example.com using ActivityPub." Similarly, Alice should be able to tell example.com that she trusts the Facebook user Bob with ID 123456789, so that example.c…
They tried this and had to stop after “I trust Cambridge Analytica, so please send my data there”...
It's worth noting that part of Facebook's culpability regarding Cambridge Analytica is that the CA "personality survey" was able to gather "personally identifiable information such as real name, location and contact details" of participating users, and also "the app did the same thing for all the friends of the user who installed it".[0]
I suppose that a lot of personal data could be gleaned about someone (and their friends) from a rogue ActivityPub node reading the posts that were federated with it, but people would be suspicious if, for example, Mastodon suddenly started asking users for their phone number, Social Security number, and a picture of their driver's license.[1] And people would be very unlikely to sign up to a node which was actually run by Cambridge Analytica, right?[2]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analy...
[1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/parler-is-not-the...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201116/01141545710/what-...
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#325I 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…
I agree and find the attempt at a breakup a bit frustrating. This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect and it's not really clear what the positives or negatives would be. For instance, FB has invested massively in trust and safety people operations and AI. What happens to that investment when IG is spun off? Laying out laws and regulations so the market works as intended (no doubt with adjustment…
>I agree and find the attempt at a breakup a bit frustrating. This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect and it's not really clear what the positives or negatives would be.
This organization itself is disruptive. As interesting as it is to discuss the potential costs and benefits, there's been a very real cost to society for these issues. It makes no sense to wait for further damage reports if that's at the cost of further damage. It's simple cost vs benefits really. Also I thought disruption was a good thing..?
Downvoted so I'll just add one more thing; this isn't a conversation that is new. I'm coming to this with that context. Do I want them to fail? No. The desired outcome is that they will self regulate. But if not, there should be competition. Monopolies naturally have negative side effects, that's why we try to avoid them.
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#326I 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.
If you can see the data, you can share the data. Preventing sharing is exactly as possible as DRM, i.e. only doable by outlawing general-purpose computing.
So while I value privacy, I'm not sympathetic to using privacy as an argument to restrict your own access to your Facebook data, for you to decide yourself on how that's shared. If you misuse your view of your friends' data, that's on you and up to your friends to punish/discourage you for.
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#327Honestly, 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…
Because internet search engine, video sharing platform, streaming entertainment content division, or a self driving car division of other competitors are clearly products belonging together.
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#328Honestly, 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 promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Amazon promoting its own brands is completely different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. You're confusing a bazaar with a retail store; the two are nothing alike legally or economically. The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment…
Not taking a stance on the main topic, but this isn’t entirely accurate. I worked at gas stations and managed a grocery store during my early days. It depended on the product. With Frito Lay and Pepsi products, they’d often times put stuff on shelves and we’d only pay for what we sold. Similarly, for certain breads and packaged pastries and other items, anything that didn’t sell by the date on the package would get credited to the store. If the item didn’t sell, it’s not that we always just absorbed the cost.
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
> independent Oculus can stagnate My experience has been that technology is far more likely to stagnate at BigCo than SmallCo - especially if SmallCo's only source of revenue is said technology.
FB are pouring billions into oculus. They intend to operate it at a loss for a good 5 more years. Only when AR is a thing will they stat to push for profitability.
I think this is the problem. Operating at a loss while wiping out players without deep pockets to run at a loss.
This should be illegal. Amazon and Uber have wiped out small players.
Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
#330Honestly, 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 promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Amazon promoting its own brands is completely different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. You're confusing a bazaar with a retail store; the two are nothing alike legally or economically. The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment…
Supermarkets do not pay for product as you describe. Manufacturers and/or distributors pay the supermarkets slotting fees to get their products on the shelves. Additionally, slotting fees are higher for ideal shelf location, and in some cases proximity to competitor products. For example, the bottom shelves are undesirable. And then you have end caps which are highly desirable.