FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

Post by Wowfunhappy » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:11 PM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #269

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly makes it 'great? No password access, login through SMS which can be intercepted, no 2FA, no access from another device while you phone is dead, compresses video to 2 pixels, no real crypto auth to speak of. It does not seem to have any features that are better than Signal, telegram, messenger, or a dozen other apps. Why is it worth any awards or special consideration, besides being popular?

> besides being popular You're not wrong about any of this, but that final phrase weighs far more for most people than anything else. It is a communications app after all, and is only useful if there are people to communicate with.

Post by adamcstephens » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

fishtacos wrote: post #80

jb1991 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iMessage, Slack, Teams These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, among other things.

Yet they can do so very easily at the flip of a button, so to speak. The capability exists, and simply because potential competitors choose to not compete in the same space is what makes WhatsApp a monopoly? See Skype, for example - the largest market penetration for a period of time and practically no one uses them any more. They were video-centric, yet the user base is already there for an extension into a primaril…

Post by Wowfunhappy » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:14 PM UTC

jskajakzkjx wrote: post #336

annadane wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't this specific story debunked? (Don't shoot me, I'm genuinely asking)

The headline is false (“WhatsApp Backdoor allows Hackers to Intercept and Read Your Encrypted Messages”), in the sense that hackers can’t actually read and intercept WhatsApp messages. Normally the reporting of a security vulnerability includes a POC of an exploit. There isn’t one here, because hackers haven’t been able to exploit it. If an activist saw this story, got scared of WhatsApp, and decided to use SMS or Te…

Post by adamcstephens » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #305

artemisyna wrote: post #70

Not a lawyer, but I'm really curious to see how this plays out. This case has a lot of confounding factors: * other companies/entities that can be considered "competitors" (Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc) * the acquisitions in question (Instagram and WhatsApp) being approved by the suing entity (namely, the FTC) themselves back in the day I wouldn't be surprised if an outcome of this were to be say, limits against cr…

I'm also not a lawyer, but this sounds unconstitutional. This lawsuit sounds even more extreme than ex post facto laws, since antitrust laws haven't changed. My pet theory is that the legislature is so divided and incompetent that laws are horribly outdated. The other two branches of government need to compensate. Google v. Oracle is another example of this.

Post by jariel » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:17 PM UTC

mrkramer wrote: post #101

This doesn't make sense who authorized Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions at the first place? FTC [1] It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is.... I look at you MySpace and Twitter. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c... "The Federal Trade Commission has closed its nonpublic investigation of Facebook's proposed acquisition of Instagram, Inc., without taking any…