Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 106 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#11

Post by badgersnake »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

“Competition is for losers” - A talk from Peter Thiel hosted by Y combinator ( https://youtu.be/3Fx5Q8xGU8k?si=3anUMopHSJ4nKk2R ) Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles” Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has d…

It sounds like you’re saying the only way Y combinator makes money is when it’s illegal.

So let’s RICO them then I guess.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#12

Post by rvz »

The anti-trust regulators have targeted almost all but one of the FAAMG companies and that is Microsoft, who certainly knows how to avoid a break-up of their entire company.

The rest have not dealt with totally removing their cases entirely, so it makes sense for the FTC and the DOJ to target everyone else first before lastly bringing up a massive case against Microsoft.

Perhaps that is their strategy in all of this.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#13

Post by croes »

rvz wrote: post #12

The anti-trust regulators have targeted almost all but one of the FAAMG companies and that is Microsoft, who certainly knows how to avoid a break-up of their entire company. The rest have not dealt with totally removing their cases entirely, so it makes sense for the FTC and the DOJ to target everyone else first before lastly bringing up a massive case against Microsoft. Perhaps that is their strategy in all of this.

How about renaming FB to Trumpbook?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#15

Post by croes »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #8
n4r9 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably it's unacceptable either way, but only one of those ways can be evidenced in court.

From the way this article reads Zuck is being derided specifically for getting caught.

It shows a certain arrogance. Some kind of too big to fail

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#16

Post by tlb »

badgersnake wrote: post #11
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

“Competition is for losers” - A talk from Peter Thiel hosted by Y combinator ( https://youtu.be/3Fx5Q8xGU8k?si=3anUMopHSJ4nKk2R ) Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles” Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has d…

It sounds like you’re saying the only way Y combinator makes money is when it’s illegal. So let’s RICO them then I guess.

By itself, becoming a monopoly can be legal & ethical.

But once you have a monopoly, you're not allowed to do certain things like buying competitors for the purpose of crushing them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#18

Post by dimal »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

“Competition is for losers” - A talk from Peter Thiel hosted by Y combinator ( https://youtu.be/3Fx5Q8xGU8k?si=3anUMopHSJ4nKk2R ) Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles” Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has d…

It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just gave a playbook for implementing this in the tech space.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#19

Post by diyftw »

rvz wrote: post #12

The anti-trust regulators have targeted almost all but one of the FAAMG companies and that is Microsoft, who certainly knows how to avoid a break-up of their entire company. The rest have not dealt with totally removing their cases entirely, so it makes sense for the FTC and the DOJ to target everyone else first before lastly bringing up a massive case against Microsoft. Perhaps that is their strategy in all of this.

There's a reason there's no M in FAANG. Unlike those "upstarts", Microsoft is more like the Lockheed Martin or GE of tech. There is so much Microsoft software in use in the gov't (especially the DoD) that it would be precarious to prosecute/regulate them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#20

Post by closewith »

dimal wrote: post #18
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

“Competition is for losers” - A talk from Peter Thiel hosted by Y combinator ( https://youtu.be/3Fx5Q8xGU8k?si=3anUMopHSJ4nKk2R ) Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles” Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has d…

It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just…

It may be an obligation, but it's certainly not a moral one.
Post reply on HN