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

681–690 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#681

Post by GreenWatermelon »

zelly wrote: post #556
ashtonkem wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think another ripe target would be separating Google from content hosting, especially YouTube.

no one else can afford to host that much useless content except maybe the US government. the alternative would be that YT dies and nothing replaces it. sometimes there is no alternative to centralization.

Especially since YouTube is, according to what I usually read in the internet, is barely (or might not even be) profitable. Google probably keeps it around because it's a source of precious data.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#682

Post by dcolkitt »

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…

> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.

Antitrust law only considers consumer welfare. It's perfectly legal to use monopoly power to squeeze third-party suppliers. Especially if any of those cost-savings are passed along to consumers in the form of lower prices. (Which is pretty indisputable with Amazon.) Antitrust only exists to protect consumers, not other businesses, competitors or suppliers.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#684

Post by mindcrime »

alisonkisk wrote: post #460
mindcrime wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you stop your real-world friends from divulging your friendship to 3rd parties? Would you even presume to have any standing to do so? I think a case could be made that knowledge that belongs to A and B equally and that neither has standing to preclude the other from sharing that fact. Of course they could both mutually agree to such an arrangement ahead of time, but outside of such an agreement, I have a hard tim…

Many states have two party consent for audio recording, for example. Not every interaction is or should be freely licensed to both parties.

Not every interaction is or should be freely licensed to both parties.

Agreed. And I am not arguing that it is, or should be. But the mere fact that two people are friends seems to me, at first blush, to be something that normally either person would be free to share.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#685

Post by mindcrime »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #333
mindcrime wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you stop your real-world friends from divulging your friendship to 3rd parties? Would you even presume to have any standing to do so? I think a case could be made that knowledge that belongs to A and B equally and that neither has standing to preclude the other from sharing that fact. Of course they could both mutually agree to such an arrangement ahead of time, but outside of such an agreement, I have a hard tim…

So there aren't things known between my friends and I that we wouldn't want divulged to a third-party?

So there aren't things known between my friends and I that we wouldn't want divulged to a third-party?

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said above. Obviously there are such things. But I do think it's an open question to what extent we can compel our friends to keep things private. Of course if someone is really a "friend" you would expect them to keep confidences if requested... that's part of the definition of "friend" in my mind.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#686

Post by gfodor »

matchbok wrote: post #395
gfodor wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume I'm talking about "VR" it shows you don't really have the same mental model of what they're trying to do at Oculus. They're creating a hardware/software proxy over your senses. This is the logical endpoint of computing. VR is just another transitional bridge.

And that's never going to happen.

So in 100 years you think we'll still be using flat rectangular displays to interface with computers? I'd happily bet against you if I'd still be around to collect.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#687

Post by rozap »

lawn wrote: post #610
aerosmile wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it that HN is all about minimal design, but the need for the parent post (in this and other threads) is a sign that the UI could be improved in this aspect.

Meh. It's all just text, why not show everything?

Yea, it'd still be smaller than loading a jira ticket or slack

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#688

Post by GreenWatermelon »

lambda_obrien wrote: post #417
pbourke wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case seems like a really stupid way to try to do some consumer protection versus writing laws that do it directly. I’m still confused as to which “market” is harmed: advertisers? Facebook users? other social networks? If the market is Facebook users, what’s the precedent in asserting this level of harm to a market that consists substantially of non-paying users of an inessential service?

> an inessential service Several people will say, "try not having a Facebook account and participating in X," where X is some mandatory part of your life, such as your children's schooling, keeping up with relatives, job-related stuff, social clubs or organizations, etc. It might not be impossible, but it's an undue burden in some cases.

Yup, pretty much.

It's impossible to keep up with college affairs without Facebook, as a Facebook group is the primary method of communication and organization.

It was even worse before the pandemic, since there were no MS Teams or Google Classrooms for each subject. If an assignment was released, it was the representative's Job to male sure it reaches everyone. Guess what did they use?

Oh the assignment is delayed? TA announces on Facebook group. Midterms Time table? College Facebook page. All college-wide announcements were made through its Facebook page.

Facebook is practically essential for college life. You could say it's the College's fault, but that's not our discussion. What's important is that I can't delete my Facebook without causing a lot of pain in the ass for myself.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#689

Post by GreenWatermelon »

majani wrote: post #281
burtonator wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term 'monopoly' is confusing because the pedantic definition is that there's only one player but this isn't the legal definition. It's not actually illegal to be a monopoly but to illegally abuse your market position leading to anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately, it's never enforce properly as the FTC doesn't have any teeth. I think the only way we're going to solve this is to actually TAX these companies a…

How is it possible to abuse a market position when there are thousands of active competitors threatening to eat Facebook's lunch in each of the areas it leads in? The app stores and web are still full of social media upstarts

Because Facebook eats the big upstarts, as evident by Instagram and WhatsApp.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#690

Post by fbelzile »

siliconmountain wrote: post #658
fbelzile wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, o…

It’s not accurate though (see other comments). The one I’m amazed by is the assertion that “ The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold)” which is leaving a lot of money off the table Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level…

> Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers.

I don't see how this invalidates the analogy. Brands paying for eye-level placement is the same as 'sponsored products' on Amazon. Any Amazon Seller has a right to do this and Amazon has the right to sell this access. Just like any brand has the right to meet eye-level requirements.

Yes, supermarkets have a store brand. Yes, they may also place store brand items at eye-level at no cost. But! I think there are two key differences:

1) In most cases, supermarkets buy from the existing product manufacturer at wholesale in order to be able to slap their brand on the product and use other cost saving measures (ie: bland, cheaper packaging, etc) to sell the same product at a lower price. In cases where they don't buy from the manufacturer, the copy of the product is likely not covered by a patent or is different enough as to not infringe on the patent/trademark.

2) Many Amazon Sellers are small independent companies, just look at their success stories page [1] to see the extent to which they market to small business owners. These businesses likely can't afford to patent their products and when Amazon decides to copy their product (based off the data they collected [2]), they can't defend themselves and their product effectively.

Not all Amazon brand products are a problem. The biggest issue is the exploitation of companies in a certain 'sweet spot' on its platform. These small businesses have taken on risk to provide a good product that sells well, but aren't big enough to patent the product or hire lawyers.

Maybe Amazon is just a symptom caused by the imbalance of power in the economy right now. Either way, it's unfair and should be fixed. I think separating Amazon "the marketplace" and Amazon "the competing store brand" would help (as long as Amazon "marketplace" sells store data to Amazon "brand name" at the same price it offers everyone else).

A law requiring store brand items to be made from an existing manufacturer in it's "marketplace" would also help. Supermarkets would be mostly unaffected, Amazon would need to a) buy the product from it's Sellers at wholesale volume (like a supermarket) and b) compete based on other merits like faster shipping, customer service, etc.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/b?node=13496283011 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its...

Post reply on HN