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

701–710 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#701

Post by dang »

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...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#702

Post by adamcstephens »

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.

You bring up an interesting point, but the Sherman and Clayton laws were passed over a century ago. Perhaps the FTC went against the will of Congress by approving them in the first place, which brings up its own questions around administration of the laws by the executive branch.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#703

Post by mthoms »

TylerE wrote: post #465
mthoms wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence? I've been in crypto a long time and have never experienced this. I'm not saying it's never happened, but implying it's some sort of repeating pattern is simply false.

https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-exchanges-overwhelmed-on-bit... https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/20/sudde... https://cryptopotato.com/bitfinex-offline-goes-in-unschedule...

You said they "tend go down for maintenance" on "any big price swings" but were only able to muster one example of one exchange going down "for maintenance" on one price swing (Bitfinex).

The others, as the articles point out, were trade volume related (which is also a problem, but much less sinister).

There's no evidence this is some kind of grand conspiracy like you implied. There's plenty to criticise in Crypto, but little evidence for what you actually claimed.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#704

Post by mthoms »

colechristensen wrote: post #521
mthoms wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We seem to have come full circle back to the original point.

Amazon chooses which products to stock and sell direct based on the risk/reward ratio of each individual product. They determine that ratio by analyzing their 3rd party merchants data.

See the problem? Amazon can eliminate/minimize their own risk based on data from their supposed "partners".

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#705

Post by TylerE »

mthoms wrote: post #703
TylerE wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-exchanges-overwhelmed-on-bit... https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/20/sudde... https://cryptopotato.com/bitfinex-offline-goes-in-unschedule...

You said they "tend go down for maintenance " on " any big price swings" but were only able to muster one example of one exchange going down "for maintenance" on one price swing (Bitfinex). The others, as the articles point out, were trade volume related (which is also a problem, but much less sinister). There's no evidence this is some kind of grand conspiracy like you implied. There's plenty to criticise in Crypto,…

You're moving the goalposts. A day when everyone is trying to get their "money" out is the definition of a high volume day.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#706

Post by rhizome »

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?

>I’m still confused as to which “market” is harmed: advertisers? Facebook users? other social networks?

Even with scare quotes it's not a multiple: the social network of Facebook users is an advertising market. You don't have to be a snot-nosed growth hacker to see that FB has a monopoly position in advertising.

Here's a test: does FB have any reason to care about the quality of whatever is being advertised in any one ad? Where are you going to advertise if FB keeps putting your ads for your doctor's office next to ones for a child-rape rock opera and/or "COVID-19 is a hoax" seminars? What is your recourse, switching your advertising to Parler and LinkedIn? NYTimes dot com? The 72 next most popular social networking sites around the world? Surely VKontakte runs a clean house.

Again, look at railroads. In the Trust era, trains were not the product, were not the market. Transportation was.

Here's a nice little rundown: https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1336813617736507397

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#707

Post by dllthomas »

nine_k wrote: post #572
dllthomas wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm afraid it's like forbidding drugs. It definitely somehow limits their use, but anybody really interested is able to obtain them illegally, or produce them themselves. I'm afraid the same will be true about micro-drones or whatever else the post suggests.

I definitely agree that there's a risk of that, but I think it deserves to be included in the analysis.

It's different from drugs in that one of the participants is unwilling, though I don't know whether that's a big enough difference - particularly given that that participant is also unwitting.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#708

Post by rolph »

facebook is a 4th generation warfare munition. FB is cultivating a body of heuristics for the manipulation of reaction prone individuals, and astroturfing to entrench ideals and predictable reactions to shocks or stressors. simply put doxing and gaslighting to create an advantage that is beyond antitrust, and in the realm of world threatening.

for your convienience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

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

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#709

Post by rolph »

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?

collect every piece of data about yourself you can think of, copyright the publication, issue DMCA taketowns on your intellectual property

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#710

Post by friedman23 »

mjevans wrote: post #574
friedman23 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is a difference between someone mentioning, with intention (that they happen to know X and implying they could offer to make that introduction), and an automated system just bulk sharing a whole address book. If the question were framed more like: "Do you consent to sharing your entire address book, so that we can better market to you and your friends and offer targeted ads based on that data to our real custom…

> and an automated system just bulk sharing a whole address book.

Presumably you would be granting this system access to this information.

>Would most people actually answer yes?

some people would, do they not have that option?

Post reply on HN