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

631–640 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#631

Post by pferde »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #622
dybber wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon can be split on other dimensions, e.g. AWS as a separate company, delivery as a separate company.

How does cleaving companies apart into their separate unrelated businesses address monopoly practices or anti-trust issues? If Amazon has a monopoly on delivery, the parted-out delivery company will still have a monopoly on delivery. If AWS has a monopoly on cloud computing, making AWS independent changes nothing. AWS is not going to begin competing with Amazon's last-mile delivery business if the two are split off i…

If nothing else, it could prevent Amazon abusing its monopoly, by leveraging its monopoly in one area to slap competition around in other areas.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#632

Post by Lio »

zepto wrote: post #312
vladmk wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People willingly gave Facebook their social graph thinking it let them share photos and messages with their friends. They had no real idea what else it would or is being used for.

Not everyone has willingly given their social graph to Facebook.

Facebook builds shadow profiles on non-users and then fills them out with, amongst other things, data it gets from their actual users that they didn't no they were sharing.

This is particularly sneaky when Facebook has used dark patterns to trick app users into granting them permissions they don't strictly need for service.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#633

Post by dalbasal »

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.

Separating IG from FB does not put anyone out of work. Nothing gets shut down. FB are extremely profitable, and that almost certainly continues

In the last paragraph, I was trying illustrate a point. With monopolies of the past, the primary concern was that the services continue to operate somehow. EG, when Bell was broken up, the danger was that phone/telegram services would be harmed. Before that, the danger was that steel production would be disrupted and downstream industries harmed.

Facebook is a monopoly in a marketplace of extreme abundance. We have lots of social media, messaging, photo sharing, etc. There is zero danger of shortages or meaningful "consumer harm," regardless of what happens to FB.

Even if antitrust does harm FB, the only stakeholders at risk are FB employees and investors. There is no systemic risk, downstream risk, consumer risk. All the risk is contained within FB.

This doesn't mean FB should be killed. It does mean that the scale tips strongly towards antitrust. On one side, we have a lot of risk. On the other, very little.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#634

Post by sjtindell »

hmall wrote: post #629
aerosmile wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it that HN is all about minimal design, but the need for the parent post (in this and other threads) is a sign that the UI could be improved in this aspect.

It is a courtesy, there is no real need for the post; the "More" link is quite discoverable. I don't think this extremely minor issue warrants cluttering the UI with additional "page 1 2 3 ..." links at the top.

Plus one.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#635

Post by glaive123 »

munk-a wrote: post #258
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.

> 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…

Facebook doesn't even let other apps access the social graph if users approve it.

You can only briefly see which friends have also already signed up.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#636

Post by gampleman »

kyriee wrote: post #538
meekmind wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. It's possible to have two completely valid, objective, and opposed positions in an argument where multiple different groups have a vested interest in one position being more popular than the other. Which one is propaganda? The one you disagree with? The one that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? The one that doesn't fit with your personality profile? Both positions? Neither position? Do we just shut…

How about a simpler principle: harm reduction. Letting people be mislead about vaccines harms people, letting people get brainwashed into mistrusting the legitimacy of their institutions harms people, letting people use their platform to incite genocide harms people. They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement. Don…

Also in the case of Covid vaccines, the heavy handed censorship being imposed seems to make people I know more nervous about the vaccine, as it is perceived to be "pushed" by those in power.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#637

Post by tempestn »

dang wrote: post #701
dang wrote: post #525

There are multiple pages of comments, accessible via the 'More' link at the bottom of the page, or click here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366&p=3 (This message will eventually self-destruct.)

This is a stub comment to hold all the replies to the parent. I did not mean to explode an offtopicness charge, and usually turn off replies for these because the same issue comes up every time and the answer is always the same. (When it comes to explaining something, the internet is stateless [1].) Forgot to do so in this case! I'll move them now. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

And now we know why most of the time dang posts these comments, he more explicitly states that they're working on a better pagination solution, and this is a temporary measure until then...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#638

Post by gampleman »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #251
civilized wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you could get your own data and the list of people authorized to see it, and pass that to a third party. If you and one of your friends both move to another network, you get to see each other's data. Any problem with this?

What if I don't want you telling folks that you are my friend? Why do you get to divulge this information to a third party that I know nothing about?

Surely that could be solved by crypto? I.e. you don't actually get a list of names, but list of asymmetric keys, and when your friend joins their key can match the one in my list?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#639

Post by cowsandmilk »

gamblor956 wrote: post #446
actuator wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many inaccuracies in this. > it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it. > Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; Only til…

Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it. Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers. Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that. I don't know why…

> I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER.

But we are asking how is Amazon different? All of their store brands share manufacturers with name brands. They haven’t developed their own textile mills and coffee roasters...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#640

Post by inglor_cz »

bilal4hmed wrote: post #268
mrlala wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But my point is "it's the norm". Either you use WhatsApp or you don't talk to people. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, really.. I think "monopolies" have their place in standardizing things that we do and it makes it convenient. (Side note: if fucking Apple would open up iMessage on android/windows they would OWN the chat market in a matter of minutes in the US) But there does get to a point where you cannot s…

Isnt that the case of network effects though ? Facebook started off in a market with Orkut, Myspace, Friendster and along came Path, Twitter, Google+. Facebook had network effects and people gravitated towards it. So this is basically saying network effect is bad. You cant get too popular.

That is where mandatory interoperability could help. We do not have insular e-mail systems that cannot communicate with one another. In case of IM, interoperability would go a long way towards reducing dominance of Facebook.
Post reply on HN