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

411–420 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#411

Post by eznzt »

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?

whatsapp has 2FA

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#412

Post by thanksforthe42 »

croes wrote: post #175
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…

You can't really compete with FAANG. They are too big. They just destroy or buy all competitors. Especially Facebook.

Let's wait a few years. Bloat will kill these companies. It's inevitable.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#413

Post by horsawlarway »

martin_drapeau wrote: post #391

I can't help but step back and look at the trade wars between the US and China. China is gaining ground fast. US on the otherhand is turning to infighting by suing FB, Google and Amazon. Countries win through innovation. It's hard to innovate with such distractions. China must be happy cheering on its tech companies while the US is on the sidelines. Go figure...

I don't buy this for a fucking second.

You don't "cheer on" the fucking global market leader. You force them to allow 3rd parties to leverage their platform for innovative, derivative products.

Facebook has been extremely hostile to any sort of 3rd party integration with their products. Break that shit up.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#414

Post by bigyikes »

vladmk wrote: post #273
munk-a wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy? I think you…

I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.

Could there be some kind of granular permissions (with privacy-first defaults) to mitigate this problem?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#416

Post by fullshark »

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817850

> Can someone please tell me how Instagram's actual content is worth anything? We're talking about photo-filtered cell phone camera shots here. Facebook doesn't need a user acquisition ploy. I guess maybe it's a move to keep users in Facebook, but I'd be willing to bet a million bucks that almost everyone is discovering Instagram content via Facebook or Twitter. Seems like mostly a huge waste of cash.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#417

Post by lambda_obrien »

pbourke wrote: post #150
burtonator wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term 'monopoly' is confusing because the pedantic definition is that there's only one player but this isn't the legal definition. It's not actually illegal to be a monopoly but to illegally abuse your market position leading to anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately, it's never enforce properly as the FTC doesn't have any teeth. I think the only way we're going to solve this is to actually TAX these companies a…

This case seems like a really stupid way to try to do some consumer protection versus writing laws that do it directly. I’m still confused as to which “market” is harmed: advertisers? Facebook users? other social networks? If the market is Facebook users, what’s the precedent in asserting this level of harm to a market that consists substantially of non-paying users of an inessential service?

> an inessential service

Several people will say, "try not having a Facebook account and participating in X," where X is some mandatory part of your life, such as your children's schooling, keeping up with relatives, job-related stuff, social clubs or organizations, etc. It might not be impossible, but it's an undue burden in some cases.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#418

Post by readams »

arthurcolle wrote: post #408
kickscondor wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seeing sharing in a social graph is easy. Defining what is "propaganda" is all but impossible.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#419

Post by javagram »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #399
wvenable wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That really doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to answer. E.g. just look at Facebook: name the #2 broadly "generic" social network. Is there really any other alternative here, at all? It really was a winner take all effect here, evidenced by the fact that all their former competitors are basically dead. Same thing with Instagram - anyone remember Hipstamatic?

Twitter and Snapchat are the obvious answers here about “competitor”.

And WhatsApp, of course, the competitors are iMessage, GChat, and MMS/RCS that’s already built right into every phone.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#420

Post by mthoms »

granzymes wrote: post #331
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…

Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then the…

None of what you wrote is really relevant to the point the parent was making. They were highlighting the upfront risk of paying for the inventory itself. Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. The vast, vast majority of other retailers do. Consignment arrangements are the exception, not the rule.

Slotting fees, like buying ads on Amazon, have absolutely nothing to do with inventory costs.

>Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.

There's exceptions to everything and the parent explicitly mentioned that.

Post reply on HN