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

521–530 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#521

Post by colechristensen »

mthoms wrote: post #420
granzymes wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever.

This is a bit extreme. “Shipped and sold by Amazon” is indeed a large part of their online retail and many people try to buy only directly from Amazon.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#523

Post by raiyu »

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.

When i add phone numbers to my phones contact list i don’t expect Apple to own it. And if i want another app to use my contacts on my phone I’m ok with that. I think opening up the social graph via API would be essential to real competition and a wealth of other apps and companies can be created. Granular access can be given so that isn’t exploited. They have the funds needed to build it out from their billions of profits.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#524

Post by friedman23 »

twblalock wrote: post #405
xmprt wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Im trying to understand, are you violating a friend's privacy now if you tell a random third party that you are friends with them?

Example, you are chatting at a party with someone and they ask you if you know Bob since he works at your company. You say yes and you say you are good friends with him. You violated Bob's privacy here?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#526

Post by bigbubba »

vlovich123 wrote: post #514
bigbubba wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small nitpick, whether or not something is propaganda has nothing to do with whether or not it's correct. These are completely orthogonal. "Loose lips sink ships" is basically true, and is also a textbook example of propaganda. Propaganda is media that intents to influence an audience to further an agenda.

By definition that is almost every communication that a human makes, whether through art, technical books, education, news, opinion pieces etc. They are all attempts to influence an audience and there’s always some kind of agenda behind it.

> Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.[1] Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda.

> In the 20th century, the term propaganda was often associated with a manipulative approach, but historically, propaganda has been a neutral descriptive term.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#527

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

alisonkisk wrote: post #461
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there aren't things known between my friends and I that we wouldn't want divulged to a third-party?

Want is different from entitled.

Then we have to dispense away with the whole privacy nonsense that runs rampant on HN concerning things such as ad tracking, location tracking and other data metrics. Because in that case, instead of the friend giving away our data, it's a 3rd party with whom we have a voluntary relationship with who is giving away THEIR data that we generate.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#528

Post by xenihn »

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.

I know people who have worked on drone targeting software that has killed civilians. No one cares.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#529

Post by Vespasian »

alisonkisk wrote: post #453
vladmk wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting your data publicly online can be not only used by Facebook but all your friends too, hell sometimes profile images end up on google, so just because they had no real idea it shouldn’t be facebooks fault if your friends decide to print screen your photo and redistribute it. That data you put out publicly is public once it’s in public domain the public will use it

Disney seems to have a different idea of "public domain" from you. Why don't I have the copyright to my life, if Disney has the copyright to Iron Man?

Of course you do (GP is wrong) at least for media which you create that clears the threshold for copyright.

The difference is that Disney grants license to its content after (potentially drawn out) negotiations and payments, while the typical Facebook users "Agrees and accepts to grant Facebook a worldwide license"

BTW it doesn't confer a license (mostly) to anybody else but normal users do not sue.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#530

Post by ehejsbbejsk »

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...

Monopoly = Lack of innovations. Isn’t Facebook the proof of that? What did Zuckerberg do since IPO? He bought a bunch of toys on shareholders’ dime. Including VR and crypto that was DOA. That said China will never catch up and it has everything to do with their political system.
Post reply on HN