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

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#51

Post by lud_lite »

realo wrote: post #38
jampekka wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way There kinda is. Capital is allocated to where it makes most profits, and most profits go to companies maximizing shareholder value. In aggregate this makes the profit maximizing companies more likely to survive. Sure this can be perhaps mitigated by e.g. legislating other duties to companies, but I'd say it's very hard even in theory, let alone in p…

So... Capitalism is bad for the people , communism is bad for the people. What _is_ good for the people? Canada?

Technology ironically. The stuff Peter talks about where Y=0. The covid vaccine inventors for example.

Other Y=0 things are people giving their lives for the greater good and basic rights. Geneva convention. Rights for black people, rights for women.

Infact the world runs on Y=0 stuff.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#52

Post by redleader55 »

neves wrote: post #41

The (good) movie Social Network makes a Fair portrait of Zuck and his awful personality traits. It's really terrible to have somebody like him as the head of a powerful corporation that almost controls our minds.

> head of a powerful corporation that almost controls our minds.

I find this line of thinking disingenuous. No one is forcing anyone to participate in social media. At the same time, no one is responsible for others participating in social media. So what makes the CEO of Facebook so evil?

My theory is that he's dislikeable as a person, regardless of what his company is making money from.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#53

Post by Juliate »

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…

> 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.

Disagree. Shareholders are not the all and everything of a company. Neither they, neither the company exist in a void.

> Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but

How is that not a contradiction with the above?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#54

Post by balls187 »

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…

Defensibility is pretty much one of the first topics raised by every investor, and thus ingrained into every founder: What is our moat? (e.g. how do we ensure no one else gets into our space until we're ready to choke out their air supply).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#55

Post by Juliate »

deeThrow94 wrote: post #47
realo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... Capitalism is bad for the people , communism is bad for the people. What _is_ good for the people? Canada?

Man, more people should read Schumpeter. Capitalism is really good for rapid growth. The second the profit motive negatively affects the quality of the product or efficiency of its production a company should be nationalized to prevent the profit motive from destroying part of our economy (the actually-useful part, that is, not investors or shareholders or dividends).

But rapid growth is not necessarily _good_. Cancer is rapid growth.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#56

Post by rvz »

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…

> Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has done it with preternatural skill.

...and the teachings from Bill Gates and Steve Jobs' mentorship.

> This is the standard for how you’re expected to act as a technology “leader” - which the majority of VC backed unicorn goal founders (like every FAANG founder) have been executing since day zero.

Except knowing how to deal with the time when anti-trust regulators are knocking on your door.

The stark difference between why Microsoft isn't being broken up vs Meta Platforms.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#57

Post by yujzgzc »

Xelbair wrote: post #34
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…

Sure, but in non-digital markets we had a term for most common growth hacking tactics for attaining that niche monopoly. Dumping. Operating on loss for years, just burning money to capture a market and then jack up prices and make competition unfeasible. Which is illegal in most cases when it comes to physical goods. of course it depends on the region you're in - it is extremely illegal with sky high fines in my coun…

The analogy with dumping is interesting. In the software world, near-zero marginal costs make it much harder to determine, but I guess the same concept does exist.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#58

Post by p_l »

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…

People are gaslighted to think Friedman's Doctrine is a legal or moral obligation, because it makes money for capitalists.

But in fact, in USA there's even a SCOTUS ruling that says it is a bogus idea

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#59

Post by Rzor »

Juliate wrote: post #55
deeThrow94 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, more people should read Schumpeter. Capitalism is really good for rapid growth. The second the profit motive negatively affects the quality of the product or efficiency of its production a company should be nationalized to prevent the profit motive from destroying part of our economy (the actually-useful part, that is, not investors or shareholders or dividends).

But rapid growth is not necessarily _good_. Cancer is rapid growth.

That's exactly the point of his follow-up.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#60

Post by mrcwinn »

I understand this case is about Facebook and not Instagram, but these quotes might offer another perspective.

>they appear to be reaching critical mass as a place you go to share photos

>[Instagram could] copy what we’re doing now … I view this as a big strategic risk for us if we don’t completely own the photos space.

In a way, this is effectively saying that Instagram could itself become a monopoly (or put differently, come to monopolize). Right? Isn't that what Meta fears?

It makes me wonder if, at least in the case of social networks, there's a natural tendency toward monopolization. In other words, is there not LESS utility to the consumer if we have a bunch of small, competitive social networks duking it out?

I'm not here to excuse Meta and certainly this is the case for federation. I guess I'm left wondering, what exactly was Meta supposed to do?

Post reply on HN