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

721–730 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#721

Post by Calamity »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #139
Grazester wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the same note, a relative asked me the same thing when they IPO.I thought if Google could make money selling ads why couldn't Facebook. I bought in at IPO price for them. I sold for them about 2 years ago when the price was dropping due to privacy scandals.

I've been giving the wrong answer to "Should I buy Bitcoin" since 2011 or so. I was bearish on Amazon when its stock was at 60 because its P/E ratio was ridiculous. I've learned to just be comfortable with the fact that I'm wrong a lot.

hahaha, don't sweat it mate. I'm right along there with you. I was surrounded by people dropping buckets of cash for GPUs back at the dawn of deep learning and was therefore naturally tempted to buy Nvidia's stock price (30$ at the time). In the end, I shied away due to the high PE too.

I take solace in the fact that some of biggest regrets or mistakes that Warren Buffet & Charlie Munger say they have made are those that you don't see - the deals they could have done but didn't and, in retrospect, should have.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#722

Post by dang »

mushufasa wrote: post #584
remarkEon wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is the right solution. Just add a link to the page numbers at the top of the thread. It's unintrusive, and still follows the minimalist design tenants of this website.

or put previous/next links in a line at the start of the comments, instead of just 'more' all the way at the bottom. i wonder if they're constrained because their staff can't maintain the codebase well in the nonstandard arc language, and pg obviously has retired

Oh no—we love arc and we're good at it.

Edit: reasonably good.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#723

Post by dang »

remarkEon wrote: post #579
jxramos wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for pagination purposes the multiple pages could be enumerated right after the opening header and we could spot right away the prolific set of comments a given post has attracted. That would make things pretty discoverable right off the bat.

Yeah this is the right solution. Just add a link to the page numbers at the top of the thread. It's unintrusive, and still follows the minimalist design tenants of this website.

The pagination is only because of performance issues on the server to begin with. Rather than adding extra complexity at the top of the thread, the solution is to improve performance and render the whole page like we used to.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#724

Post by dang »

edumucelli wrote: post #606
hombre_fatal wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone knows that the UX is bad. The work just has to be done, and it's not particularly critical. If I know anything about software, it's been in HN's issue tracker for years.

This UX may be bad, but the current hackish solution of a parent comment being posted with link to the other pages is the worst.

That's on purpose:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087113

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25065663

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24042165

If you guys complain enough about these comments at the top of the threads, it might actually get me to finish the damn performance improvements so I guess keep complaining.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#725

Post by harrydehal »

edumucelli wrote: post #606
hombre_fatal wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone knows that the UX is bad. The work just has to be done, and it's not particularly critical. If I know anything about software, it's been in HN's issue tracker for years.

This UX may be bad, but the current hackish solution of a parent comment being posted with link to the other pages is the worst.

Dang, is there a GitHub repo where we can contribute, file a pull request, and see what happens?

I only see the API available, not any of the front-end: https://github.com/HackerNews

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#726

Post by wvenable »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #399
wvenable wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets What is the "market"? Things people do on their phones? What are they precisely monopolizing?

That really doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to answer. E.g. just look at Facebook: name the #2 broadly "generic" social network. Is there really any other alternative here, at all? It really was a winner take all effect here, evidenced by the fact that all their former competitors are basically dead. Same thing with Instagram - anyone remember Hipstamatic?

What is a social network? What makes Facebook different from Twitter, Reddit, HackerNews, or Linkedin?

Basically if you define social network as something exactly like Facebook then, of course, that's what it is and everything else is excluded.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#727

Post by Fjolsvith »

harrydehal wrote: post #725
edumucelli wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This UX may be bad, but the current hackish solution of a parent comment being posted with link to the other pages is the worst.

Dang, is there a GitHub repo where we can contribute, file a pull request, and see what happens? I only see the API available, not any of the front-end: https://github.com/HackerNews

It is a black box. An enigma, wrapped in mystery and covered in secret sauce.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#728

Post by vladmk »

pmoriarty wrote: post #518
vladmk wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that’s what separates me and you I have more faith in humanity. I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic. PS by fighting this point you’re merely pointing out that giving more businesses this data isn’t a good idea

"I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic" It doesn't have to run on companies spying on their users either.

Companies spying on people has existed since the beginning of business. You call it spying we call it market research.

Sam Walton of Walmart would record everything about his competitors legally and illegally as well as clients yet you never see that in the news, why? Because it’s not sexy, it’s not about the internet.

This is why Equifax which was a much more horrible data breach isn’t thought about, yet everyone gets their panties in a bunch about Facebook

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#729

Post by rhizome »

slut wrote: post #296
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…

If only the same entity that is now suing them for antitrust didn't approve these acquisitions, and fairly recently as well.

They didn't "approve" it, they closed their investigation, which they specifically called out as not saying there's no violation(s): https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/closing-le...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#730

Post by rhizome »

majani wrote: post #281
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…

How is it possible to abuse a market position when there are thousands of active competitors threatening to eat Facebook's lunch in each of the areas it leads in? The app stores and web are still full of social media upstarts

Mostly because your definition of "market" is naive (in the generic sense, not a personal insult) and too-narrow.
Post reply on HN