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

401–410 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#401

Post by grishka »

gumby wrote: post #376
grishka wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in the parallel universe, in Russia, VKontakte provides full API access to anyone who clicks the button to create an API app. You only need manual review if you want access to messaging from user tokens, and that's a relatively recent change. Somehow, this hasn't turned into a privacy nightmare in more than 10 years the API was available. I'm not defending VK — it does some increasingly user-hostile stuff t…

> Somehow, this hasn't turned into a privacy nightmare in more than 10 years the API was available. How would you know?

Most of the data you can access through the API is public anyway. You could as well scrape it off the website, API just provides it in a more convenient format. For example, you're able to get profiles and friend lists and posts of arbitrary people, as long as they're publicly visible, without real authentication (but you do need a "service token" you get on the app settings page).

The worst thing to ever happen with that open data was that some debt collection agencies used it to threaten people and their friends, and I believe that's why those service tokens were introduced. And that story was rather widely publicized: https://www.the-village.ru/business/finance/217569-banki-pis... for example.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#402

Post by dhnajsjdnd »

biggermike wrote: post #388
aardvarkr wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business. I’m not aware of a business model that would keep a search company in business if they didn’t offer ads to go with it. On top of that, offering the ability to companies to target their ads to highly relevant consumers is incredibly valuable to our economy.

They can still sell their inventory e.g. impressions and clicks, but they wouldn't run the DSP/SSP (just like other ad supported publishers).

In other words, it would mandate the existence of a layer of middlemen between the search engine and ad buyers.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#403

Post by [deleted] »

wvenable wrote: post #339
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…

> But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets What is the "market"? Things people do on their phones? What are they precisely monopolizing?

[deleted]

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#404

Post by grishka »

Catsandkites wrote: post #392
grishka wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in the parallel universe, in Russia, VKontakte provides full API access to anyone who clicks the button to create an API app. You only need manual review if you want access to messaging from user tokens, and that's a relatively recent change. Somehow, this hasn't turned into a privacy nightmare in more than 10 years the API was available. I'm not defending VK — it does some increasingly user-hostile stuff t…

Isn't there an app that lets you take/provide a photo of somebody's face and get their VK profile?

FindFace? It shut down its user-facing service several years ago and focused on selling its technology. There are rumors it has some government contracts.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#405

Post by twblalock »

xmprt wrote: post #242
ikiris wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of amazing how most even tech people don't seem to understand this.

The comment says "there's no way." I can think of at least one which involves a user manually downloading the data and then manually uploading it to another service.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that if I export my social graph and share it with another company, it includes information about who my friends are -- at the very least, it shows that they are my friends. That violates their privacy. Maybe they did not want their relationship with me to be known outside the social network where they established it.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#406

Post by phendrenad2 »

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…

Facebook was smart, it wasn't just a social network, it also was an apps and games platform. Remember Farmville? And also many bands ended up putting their merch and tour dates up on FB because it was just so easy.

Then recently it grew a marketplace to take on craigslist and ebay, and added videos (making it a mini youtube or tiktok).

And let's not forget that FB groups are the go-to place for many hobbies. Into old cars? Or old sewing machines? You won't find an active forum for those things, or if you do, they're 1000x more hostile and trollish than FB's groups.

So my question is, where do you draw the line? Was FB marketplace anticompetitive because it pushed out craigslist?

I guess this whole thing is a fishing expedition to see if the justice department can find a smoking gun email where someone says, like, "Let's be anticompetitive with snapchat" or something...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#407

Post by plandis »

I'm kind of confused by this. When Facebook acquired WhatsApp didn't it have to get government approval? For example here [1] is an article from Reuters.

It seems like "corporate entrapment" to approve a deal and then later sue the company for going through with the deal that you approved. For what it's worth, I'm not fan of Facebook (I'm not employed, don't directly own their stock, and in general do use Facebook products) but this seems kind of absurd to me.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-whatsapp/faceboo...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#408

Post by arthurcolle »

kickscondor wrote: post #261
saddlerustle wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. P…

Social graphs are really useful for detecting idea contagion though. Facebook obviously has the tools to fight propaganda, they have one of the most granular datasets of people data ever assembled in human history. They are just addicted to the ad dollars. It is a shame they killed their delightful API.

Good riddance to them.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#409

Post by tomtheelder »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #330
gamblor956 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Slotting fees are real, but of course supermarkets pay for the product. How else would the manufacturer be paid? The fee is basically paying for the right to shelf space, but the supermarket still buys the product to fill the shelves. Also, not all supermarkets, including not all large chains, have such fees.
Post reply on HN