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

FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#501

Post by NeutronStar »

greggman3 wrote: post #497
gamblor956 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then they will start buying less of yours. You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals... It's about market fit. Price sensitive custo…

> You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals. If my brand is diluted then there's no reason to keep using me to create the store brand. Being the manufacturer of the store brand is just signing my own death sentence.

They're the same company, it literally owns both brands.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#502

Post by atmartins »

meekmind wrote: post #475
arthurcolle wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, I really don't think so. shrugs

It is. It's possible to have two completely valid, objective, and opposed positions in an argument where multiple different groups have a vested interest in one position being more popular than the other. Which one is propaganda? The one you disagree with? The one that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? The one that doesn't fit with your personality profile? Both positions? Neither position? Do we just shut…

Objective is a precondition that don't exist when most people call something propaganda. In fact, many definitions of the word call this out, specifically.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#503

Post by squeaky-clean »

gamblor956 wrote: post #440
granzymes wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then the…

That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then they will start buying less of yours. You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals... It's about market fit. Price sensitive custo…

> You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals...

It's the same with Amazon. They may not be using the "name brand" manufacturer all the time, but Amazon doesn't own factories that make Amazon brand products. They use OEM's like everyone else. They don't own farms and dairy mills for their grocery products.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#505

Post by fbelzile »

gamblor956 wrote: post #299
crazygringo wrote: post #199

Honestly, while I have my doubts about this succeeding, it nevertheless feels like the big tech suit most likely to succeed. Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search com…

Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Amazon promoting its own brands is completely different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. You're confusing a bazaar with a retail store; the two are nothing alike legally or economically. The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment…

Thank you. This is the first time I've seen my thoughts on this explained so clearly. This is something I felt was unfair but couldn't quite pare it down in a succinct argument like that.

It just feels so obvious. What leads someone as smart as Bezos to ignore this line of reasoning? Even if it turns out that it's not "illegal," I feel like deep down, people inside the company just know what they're doing is slimy, or at least, unfair.

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of Amazon to call itself a marketplace (or 'bazaar') to avoid future legislative action?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#506

Post by bigbubba »

meekmind wrote: post #475
arthurcolle wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, I really don't think so. shrugs

It is. It's possible to have two completely valid, objective, and opposed positions in an argument where multiple different groups have a vested interest in one position being more popular than the other. Which one is propaganda? The one you disagree with? The one that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? The one that doesn't fit with your personality profile? Both positions? Neither position? Do we just shut…

Small nitpick, whether or not something is propaganda has nothing to do with whether or not it's correct. These are completely orthogonal. "Loose lips sink ships" is basically true, and is also a textbook example of propaganda. Propaganda is media that intents to influence an audience to further an agenda.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#507

Post by SulfurHexaFluri »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #492
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is facebook is wiping out the alternatives. In Australia there is a decent buy/sell site called Gumtree but its ultimately doomed as facebook marketplace uses its massive pre exsting userbase to wipe it out. Facebook either buys or crushes all competition which doesn't have billions of dollars to push back.

Humanity got by without Facebook alternatives 20 years ago. You'll be fine.

Of course I won't cease functioning without being able to buy and sell furniture but my life will be worse off than before.

Since the function of the government should be ensuring the best outcome for the majority of the population and what facebook does makes things worse for the majority, it makes sense to take action here.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#510

Post by musicale »

gumby wrote: post #376
grishka wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in the parallel universe, in Russia, VKontakte provides full API access to anyone who clicks the button to create an API app. You only need manual review if you want access to messaging from user tokens, and that's a relatively recent change. Somehow, this hasn't turned into a privacy nightmare in more than 10 years the API was available. I'm not defending VK — it does some increasingly user-hostile stuff t…

> Somehow, this hasn't turned into a privacy nightmare in more than 10 years the API was available. How would you know?

Federal Security Service assures us there is no privacy problem.
Post reply on HN