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

51–60 of 236 posts

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

#51

Post by beagle3 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #14
deathgrips wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Because now there's less competition.

Instagram didn't have to sell. Less competition isn't the same thing as preventing competition. For example, imagine three restaurants competing. Two of them make an agreement with a common supplier to shut out the third competitor. That is what I think of as anti-competitive.

Snapchat refused to sell, and Facebook pushed 3 different Snapchat competitors at the same time as a result, none of which were a success on their own - but which did make a significant dent in Snapchats growth.

This is a “I’ll push you out of the market by taking a loss” behavior, similar to MS inclusion of IE in Windows.

Whether or not NS or SC was/is a good product is irrelevant. This is the behavior that antitrust legislation is supposed to stop. The law iirc does not require that prices increase directly; rather that customers be harmed (of which price increase is a possible expression)

The customers in this case are advertisers, and they are definitely harmed - there are now two online advertising venues, Google and Facebook, both making outsized profits because they are the only two games in town. (Which on its own is NOT illegal - but using dominant position to maintain it, as Facebook has done with e.g. Onavo, instagram, Snapchat) is anticompetetive.

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

#52

Post by beagle3 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #44
smt88 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's consumers are businesses, and their price is not 0.

The acquisition didn’t reduce competition for advertisers because Instagram didn’t have ads before Facebook owned them.

Facebook didn’t have any adverts before it had them. Neither did google, or for that matter cable TV.

Unless you have inside knowledge about Instagram’s business plans, it is reasonable to assume they would have had ads sooner or later, as no other monetization scheme seems sustainable for this kind of “product”.

The nipping of competition in the bud does not make it any less anti competitive.

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

#53

Post by beagle3 »

YarickR2 wrote: post #40
rydre wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price in this case is calculated by the amount of Ads you have to see, the effect on mental health because of Facebook's physiological experiments on its users, Facebook not obeying laws of smaller countries where it operates in, Facebook not paying taxes in other countries, owning Instagram - effectively the second largest competitor to Facebook is also owned by Facebook, too late to take anti discriminately actions…

Instagram is a Facebook competitor ? That's a sick joke; those two social networks have less in common than birds and mammals

A competitor is not defined by doing the same thing (for which you can always find a distinction), but by competing for the same customer resources.

Facebook used to only have text, and people linked to pictures on (mostly) Flickr. And then MZ realized 80% of Facebook posts Link to pictures on outside websites. That’s competition for ad placement; so FB added picture storage, albums, etc. same with Videos.

The customers, advertisers, previously had Flickr as an option. Now they don’t. That’s not a coincidence. And that’s not even illegal on FB’s part as long as they aren’t a monopoly - but now they are.

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

#54

Post by slim »

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…

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.

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

#55

Post by alexmingoia »

baryphonic wrote: post #47
alexmingoia wrote: post #7

The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything. But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete. It’s a contradiction to say…

> It’s a contradiction to say the network effect protects Facebook but at the same time say they had to buy Instagram because they were successfully competing despite the network effect. Facebook’s network effect didn’t stop Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, etc. It's not a contradiction, since network effects can be unstable over time (e.g. people get older and young people "enter the pipeline," sometimes with differen…

I don’t follow how the existence of companies succeeding in the face of competitors with “network effects” supports the idea that network effects limit competition...

I agree network effects are part of the value of the product, but I don’t see how that limits competition. Users can have both a Facebook and a Twitter, or Facebook and MySpace, etc. Network effects don’t stop people from joining other networks.

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

#57

Post by fx32s »

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…

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 bring value to a significant share of people.

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

#58

Post by jakequade »

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…

In what world is having geo-specific social networks run by corporations a good outcome? "Like China" is a pretty bad north star for almost any country.

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

#59

Post by fsflover »

deathgrips wrote: post #49
cambalache wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it a competition? Because nobody is winning. Nobody in the world says, oh please Americans come to fuck us because at least you use lubricant.

How do I save comments?

You click on the time of the comment, then click “favorite”

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

#60

Post by onion2k »

hkai wrote: post #41
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…

Just to check, between Facebook and WeChat, which company engages more in predatory, racist and violent practices and is complicit in unthinkable brutality and violations of human rights?

I think it's a draw.
Post reply on HN