Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #187

scarface74 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn’t have coercive power to force me to do anything. The government does. It’s not Libertarianism. It’s a fundamental distrust of governments.

That's what I mean. Your distrust should extend to things that have the same qualities as "government." At the more monopolistic end of the spectrum, and in many real life examples, they're a type of government... in the sense that they govern. This can also be true of very powerful religious institutions. Power, coercive or otherwise, is more complex than that. If all media is state media, that's something to seriou…

Can Facebook have me arrested? Take my property via “civil forfeiture” or “imminent domain”? Can they force me to pay taxes? Do they employ police who can shoot me in the back to make me use their services? Can they hire people to choke me for nine minutes? Do their employees have military styled weapons who can be summoned to someone’s house just by making a false report?

Comparing any modern private company’s power to the government is like comparing a flea to the sun.

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

#192

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #190

scarface74 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in what world would most of the money losing companies that Apple bought remained private and profitable? Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. Could any of the chip design companies remain private? What would have happened to the company that Apple bought that made Workflow - that is now the Shortcuts app - if Apple had just built it in house? Would that have been a better outcome for consumers or…

> Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. They would have created one, by doing the obvious thing. Selling ads. I don't think they would need FB to figure out that they need to do that.

If they hadn’t run out of money first. Also advertisers don’t want to deal with every mom and pop website. If they did, you wouldn’t have the pervasiveness of as networks.

What are the chances that they could have grown organically? Do you really want the government to tell founders that they couldn’t accept Facebook’s $1 billion dollars? Would you want the government telling you who you couldn’t sell your property to?

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

#193

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #191

netcan wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I mean. Your distrust should extend to things that have the same qualities as "government." At the more monopolistic end of the spectrum, and in many real life examples, they're a type of government... in the sense that they govern. This can also be true of very powerful religious institutions. Power, coercive or otherwise, is more complex than that. If all media is state media, that's something to seriou…

Can Facebook have me arrested? Take my property via “civil forfeiture” or “imminent domain”? Can they force me to pay taxes? Do they employ police who can shoot me in the back to make me use their services? Can they hire people to choke me for nine minutes? Do their employees have military styled weapons who can be summoned to someone’s house just by making a false report? Comparing any modern private company’s power…

> Comparing any modern private company’s power to the government is like comparing a flea to the sun.

Well, that's trivially true for corporations, since each corporation is itself an exercise of government power, so all of their power is a subset of government power.

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

#194

Post by ankit219 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #180

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…

> 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 data collection problem is basically independent of the antitrust problem. The only real overlap is that you can't avoid the data collection when the service is a monopoly you can't avoid doing business with, but the general solution -- more comp…

Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service. Even a small social network is sort of a monopoly if all of your friends and family is on that network. That way, even the competitors wont solve the data collection part. I am assuming unless the rules are in place, every one would just keep collecting maximum data.

Adversarial interoperability also means there is incentive for both the incumbent and competitor to keep innovating to keep the audience there (and be mindful of newer ones emerging) and hence the best for the customer.

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

#195

Post by ankit219 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #148

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…

>Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies I don't think this is true. The idea that antitrust is only about supply and consumer benefit is extremely limited view. It came in flavor in the US late-1970's and it's known as "Chicago School of Antitrust Law". The defining book of that school is Robert Bork's 'The Antitrust Paradox' (1978).

I meant in more of a generic sense (as to where they were usually applied) than the specific definition of the law. Will definitely read the book if I can find it somewhere. Not based out of US, so might be difficult to find.

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

#196

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #85

oska wrote: post #21

I think the very unhealthy dominance of Facebook will only start to properly recede when countries outside the USA start to block its use. This is a highly predatory company that takes away sovereignty in each nation's cyberspace and it really only makes sense for foreign countries to block it and either let their own national corporate replacements emerge (as China has done) or foster the use of open social networks…

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…

>Facebook could disappear tomorrow and consumers would barely be inconvenienced.

Correction: If facebook disappeared tomorrow YOU would be barely inconvenienced. I don't think you accurately speak for all of Facebook's 2 billion monthly users and the millions of businesses and orgs that advertise on the platform. (paid or unpaid)

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

#197

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #175

camgunz wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are sometimes capable of making rational decisions, but there's a whole industry (advertising, maybe you've heard of it) dedicated to working against that. Think of really any common sense regulation: - Can't use leaded gasoline - Can't use asbestos - Must wear a seat belt - Cannot drive while intoxicated If people always behaved well, we wouldn't need laws. They don't, so we do.

All of those cases cause external harm to other people. Logging into FB and posting memes doesn’t.

I’ve known people who have been harmed by logging into FB. Sometimes it’s the memes, comments, DMs, and disinformation that causes harm. Sometimes it’s Facebook running a social experiment without consent to see if they can alter users’ moods.

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

#198

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #192

stale2002 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. They would have created one, by doing the obvious thing. Selling ads. I don't think they would need FB to figure out that they need to do that.

If they hadn’t run out of money first. Also advertisers don’t want to deal with every mom and pop website. If they did, you wouldn’t have the pervasiveness of as networks. What are the chances that they could have grown organically? Do you really want the government to tell founders that they couldn’t accept Facebook’s $1 billion dollars? Would you want the government telling you who you couldn’t sell your property t…

That’s already the case that the government limits these transactions, and for good reasons.

Democracies and free markets are good at many things, but staying free is not one of those things. If Google and Facebook decided to merge tomorrow, the government would stop them, for good reasons. If Verizon and AT&T decide to merge, similarly so.

I was only suggesting that these restriction apply more strictly; and indeed that would dramatically change the market - similar time how existing regulation change the market so there’s no googbook or veriso&t

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

#199

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

ankit219 wrote: post #194

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 data collection problem is basically independent of the antitrust problem. The only real overlap is that you can't avoid the data collection when the service is a monopoly you can't avoid doing business with, but the general solution -- more comp…

Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service. Even a small social network is sort of a monopoly if all of your friends and family is on that network. That way, even the competitors wont solve the data collection part. I am assuming unless the rules are in place, every one would just keep collecting maximum…

> Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service.

The point is that data collection is just problem #8345732473 on the great scroll of reasons why monopolies are bad. It doesn't cause the monopoly and it isn't a significant problem if you make the monopoly go away.

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

#200

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

bhahn wrote: post #163

beagle3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not the customer. Advertisers are. Google and Facebook are the only games in town for online advertising these days; the fact both are making incredible amounts of money means either competitors aren't good enough, or are being priced out of the market, or squeezed out of it (due to network effects or anti-competitively). For Google - the vast majority of whose income comes from search ads - there is no netwo…

> YouTube does have a network-effect lock in, but AFAIK that's not really a revenue source for google. Just to clarify, YouTube revenue in 2019 was around $15 billion, which even for Google is not a small number.

Thanks for the correction. I meant “profit”, and wasn’t even aware that YouTube revenue was disclosed this year for the first time (profit wasn’t... and YouTube likely costs a lot more to run per $ earned than the search, but how you assign profits and costs is art rather than science).