FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization • Hacker News Board

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#541

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:05 AM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #394

adamcstephens wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unconstitutional? How?

Article 1, §9 specifically forbids the Congress from passing any ex post facto laws, and §10. does the same for the states. Since the FTC already gave consent the first time around, this hinges on whether the FTC as an independent agency is considered a proxy for Congress. Note that the attorney generals' separate suit does not have this concern.

Not a lawyer question:

Does that prevent Congress from passing laws criminalizing ongoing behavior by corporations, or just from prosecuting acts from before the law was passed?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#542

Post by justapassenger » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:07 AM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #329

KaiserPro wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would make all new business illegal, as you operate at a loss for multiple years.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#543

Post by beezle » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:16 AM UTC

adamcstephens wrote: post #364

jfengel wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FTC cleared FB to buy Instagram in the first place[1]. Any idea what changed? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-instagram-idUSBR...

They realized they were wrong and there’s a growing antitrust movement in the US.

Is there precedent for such a thing? Five or ten years after approving acquisitions and then saying 'oh our bad, that was anticompetitive' I'm not a fan of FB, was only a user briefly (though still maintain whatsapp) but find that this action is a misquided attempt to punish FB because some people can't accept its success and find the platform abhorrent.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#544

Post by OpieCunningham » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:18 AM UTC

tomtheelder wrote: post #409

OpieCunningham wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. I didn't say anything differently. The parent though was mistaken to believe supermarkets do not have similar structures to Amazon in terms of product placement/promotion. In other words, Apple pays Amazon in some form in order to have Amazon prioritize Apple products based upon user search. Supermarkets are paid by Starkist to get Starkist tuna on the eye-level shelf as opposed to the first shelf from the floor. Starkist and Apple still get paid for products sold, otherwise neither company could exist.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#545

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:22 AM UTC

strbean wrote: post #477

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…

Piping in with a very tangential thought: Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - h…

I think your point is interesting if not conclusive, and I think your down-voters missed your final paragraph, but I think you're missing something here:

> The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.

There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is difficult to prevent (and sometimes difficult to detect).

Whether trying to use the law to deter here is worthwhile, meaningless, or harmful isn't necessarily clear - but it deserves consideration in addition to outright prevention.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#546

Post by quantummkv » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:24 AM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #378

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…

I still think you were correct, you just underestimated how long it would take for this to happen if the company was actually competent (unlike MySpace), and all the money that could be made in the meantime. Facebook The Platform's userbase keeps getting older and less engaged, millennials and younger have largely shifted to instagram. Taken by itself, Facebook the platform doesn't have great looking prospects. Insta…

> Now that Zuck is under so much scrutiny, he won't be allowed to acquire the next hot social platform. When instagram isn't the "it" platform anymore, Facebook is doomed.

Zuck got around that problem copying competitors lock, stock and barrel and using his monopoly to attempt drive out that competition.

Instagram was under threat by two "It" networks. Both of them ended up being copied in Instagram

Facebook needs to be broken up into three companies to fix it all.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#547

Post by azernik » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

fishtacos wrote: post #97

chc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the average Facebook user readily replace their use of Facebook with LinkedIn or TikTok? I am not a big user of any of those products, but I have the distinct impression that the answer is no.

From the FTC.gov[1]: "The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market.…

> Does FB unreasonably restrain competition? (My answer is no)

The lawsuit specifically cites Zuckerberg talking about acquisitions (in this case, the failed Twitter acquisition) as giving "extra time... to get our product in order without having to worry about a competitor growing".

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#548

Post by ashtonkem » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

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 think another ripe target would be separating Google from content hosting, especially YouTube.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#549

Post by eitland » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #511

I fail to see what the public benefit would be of breaking out Instagram and WhatsApp, or exposing the APIs more widely. * Are customers lives improved by browsing lifestyle photos on Instagram^notFB ? * WhatsApp makes voice and video calls. How does it affect me that it's part of FB? How is my life improved if its not? Another voice/video app will somehow thrive? * Opening their APIs so that a couple of startups can…

> WhatsApp makes voice and video calls. How does it affect me that it's part of FB? How is my life improved if its not? Another voice/video app will somehow thrive?

WhatsApp used to have strong guarantees against tracking (and ads) as long as they were independent.

They were wildly profitable and was my favorite messaging service until Facebook bought them.

Now I reluctantly use Telegram, but I'd much rather have something like WhatsApp back were I can pay real money for the service instead of paying with my metadata.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#550

Post by ralph84 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #533

dalbasal wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tough. There is more at stake than FB recovering its investment into IG. Besides... they will get to sell it, probably at a profit. They got to own it for 8 years, enjoyed the benefits of lowered competition. They will be fine. I agree that this should have been prevented in the first place, but we are where we are. Controversially, I don't think ordinary rule of law can apply to FAANG-scale monopolies. There's no wa…

Imagine being so callous about putting 50,000+ people out of work overnight and calling it basically nothing.

People call for putting way more than 50,000+ people out of work all of the time (eliminating the oil and gas industry as an example). If the belief is those people are engaged in harmful activity, why wouldn't you want them to stop ASAP?