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

Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

insights.som.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 236 posts

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#101

Post by loceng »

ankit219 wrote: post #92

Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies, while this is a demand side monopoly, and would be a tricky case for anti trust to prove. If the mandate is to do what is best for customers, then the best solution I can think of is to let FB function as one entity but toughen the norms on data collection. The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's grap…

Laws need to be updated to account for the network effects of the data lock position, where you, your data, and network are prevented from easily being mobile.

Your digital data should be considered to be equivalent to you having built a house, a big asset, but now you have a big choice to make: abandon it because the state is doing some sketchy things that you don't agree with or want to support by the taxes collected, or not.

The lack of data portability, mobility of users, is the only reason Facebook and its leadership could repeatedly be a bad actor and continue to scale as it did; by data portability I also mean that all data should also maintain cross-linking attribution, so if anyone in your network also leaves Facebook to join platform X instead - that data can be imported and aligned, synchronized properly on the other platform so it doesn't get broken. None of the incumbents are going to voluntarily to implement this.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#102

Post by throwanem »

input_sh wrote: post #84
deathgrips wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a trade off. Do you want to risk being censored by your own country or risk being censored by San Francisco?

Can I democratically elect who will represent me in a Silicon Valley company? If not, I'm going to choose my own country. I am aware that citizens of more repressive governments might not make the same choice.

What choice? Repressive governments typically have minimal difficulty getting Silicon Valley to repress their subjects on their behalf.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#103

Post by gmac »

praptak wrote: post #62
fx32s wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how having national backed social media platforms to the likes china does is a better alternative for end users compared to facebook. If you are a proponent for open speech this will accomplish the opposite since it simplifies state issued censorship. I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't b…

If it's something like BBC then I still prefer it to a private monopoly. BBC is technically national but at the same time pretty independent in its reporting.

I'd challenge that assumption. The BBC has arguably become much more of a state broadcaster than a public interest broadcaster in recent decades. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/c...

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#104

Post by jfengel »

pferde wrote: post #81
slim wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need laws. Operating a social network should be subject to specific rules like : 1- Everything is public, no private messages. 2- Public unlimited standardised API. 3- No denial of access, no censorship, without court order.

I get #2 and #3, but why #1? I like being able to "whisper" to people privately. Private messaging has been part of all communication protocols and pre-web2.0 social networks, and even in real life, you can lean in towards someone and, well, whisper something in their ear.

I suppose it might be worth recognizing that a social media system with access to your private messages both gives them a lot of power, and confuses users. Privacy on social media isn't really trustworthy. If you want to whisper, do it via email, where at least it isn't on Facebook's servers.

I don't say anything on Facebook that I wouldn't want on the front page of the New York Times. I don't trust either them or other users to keep it private. (I don't even like putting sensitive things in email, if I can do it in person instead.)

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#105

Post by scarface74 »

The question is how does this “monopoly” hurt consumers? It’s social media. I use FB, just like most of the rest of the world. But if it died tomorrow the world would go on.

Besides, anti trust in the US is focused on consumer harm. How does a Facebook’s monopoly hurt consumers?

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#106

Post by scarface74 »

justaguyhere wrote: post #98
netcan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small countries can ban facebook from doing certain things. Ultimately, some sovereignty exists even in global commerce. If New Zealand made (eg) political advertising, targeted advertising, or such ilegal, Facebook would stop doing it in New Zealand. That is treating the symptom, but it is not totally ineffective. Treating the problem is dealing with the monopoly. The current state of antitrust laws, norms and regul…

Maybe future generations will realize how shitty FB is and stop using it (one can hope!) A bigger problem is FB owns much better products like WhatsApp - it is easy to quit FB than WhatsApp in my opinion

So you mean the solution to the FB “problem” is people using their own free will and it doesn’t involve the Nanny State?

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#107

Post by fr2null »

justaguyhere wrote: post #98
netcan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small countries can ban facebook from doing certain things. Ultimately, some sovereignty exists even in global commerce. If New Zealand made (eg) political advertising, targeted advertising, or such ilegal, Facebook would stop doing it in New Zealand. That is treating the symptom, but it is not totally ineffective. Treating the problem is dealing with the monopoly. The current state of antitrust laws, norms and regul…

Maybe future generations will realize how shitty FB is and stop using it (one can hope!) A bigger problem is FB owns much better products like WhatsApp - it is easy to quit FB than WhatsApp in my opinion

As part of the "future generation" (Maybe? I'm 18 years old), almost none of my peers use Facebook anymore. At least not actively. We do however still use WhatsApp and Instagram.

While Instagram and WhatsApp are still used the most, by far, there are some other social media apps that are also heavily used. Most notably Snapchat and TikTok.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#108

Post by scarface74 »

rpastuszak wrote: post #79
fx32s wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems. > I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all…

> People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change. This is why populists or platforms like FB make sure that people either don’t know that things can change or that they already live in the best version of the reality and, well, everyone else has it worse.

Right because FB controls people’s access to information to the point where they keep people from knowing “The Truth”.

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#109

Post by scarface74 »

frabcus wrote: post #93
fx32s wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems. > I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all…

"People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change." That isn't how monopolies work - while some people can individually make huge sacrificies and not use any Facebook product, in reality that isn't practical and few people will because they are a monopoly. This isn't like buying a car where there are multiple providers who all use the same roads and petrol. Or the mobile phone system, where ther…

It’s now a “huge sacrifice” not to use Facebook?

Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior

#110

Post by snarf21 »

scarface74 wrote: post #105

The question is how does this “monopoly” hurt consumers? It’s social media . I use FB, just like most of the rest of the world. But if it died tomorrow the world would go on. Besides, anti trust in the US is focused on consumer harm. How does a Facebook’s monopoly hurt consumers?

I'm not trolling but the same way ALL monopolies hurt consumers and the fair market. It is not a hard thing to read on up monopolies across history. And it isn't just FB. We need to stop the M&A activity that is only good for the VCs and not the consumers. We need to start unrolling the ones that have already happened.
Post reply on HN