FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

Post by Yhippa » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:09 AM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #532

phendrenad2 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you ever sold anything on Facebook Marketplace? It's shockingly easy. I'm relatively late to the party. When I used it for the first time earlier this year I felt like it was the wave of the future.

Post by thraway12 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:15 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #545

strbean wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffi…

Post by thraway12 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:17 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.

Post by TheRealNGenius » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:18 AM UTC

mfer wrote: post #201

theanarcrist wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect If FB is doing anti-competitive things than disruption is needed. It's not meant to be comfortable. Companies are really good at learning the playing field and then gaming it for their benefits. Tweaks to laws are often easy to work around. Disruption that stops an illegal monopoly is going to be uncomfortable. Especially at first. But, it opens the doo…

Post by thraway12 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:24 AM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #90

artemisyna wrote: post #70

Not a lawyer, but I'm really curious to see how this plays out. This case has a lot of confounding factors: * other companies/entities that can be considered "competitors" (Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc) * the acquisitions in question (Instagram and WhatsApp) being approved by the suing entity (namely, the FTC) themselves back in the day I wouldn't be surprised if an outcome of this were to be say, limits against cr…

This is the thing I have a hard time understanding, as far as I'm aware the FTC approved all this, these were not forceful takeovers. What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration?