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

711–720 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#711

Post by rolph »

quantummkv wrote: post #546
pembrook wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think you were correct, you just underestimated how long it would take for this to happen if the company was actually competent (unlike MySpace), and all the money that could be made in the meantime. Facebook The Platform's userbase keeps getting older and less engaged, millennials and younger have largely shifted to instagram. Taken by itself, Facebook the platform doesn't have great looking prospects. Insta…

> Now that Zuck is under so much scrutiny, he won't be allowed to acquire the next hot social platform. When instagram isn't the "it" platform anymore, Facebook is doomed. Zuck got around that problem copying competitors lock, stock and barrel and using his monopoly to attempt drive out that competition. Instagram was under threat by two "It" networks. Both of them ended up being copied in Instagram Facebook needs to…

i think it should be more than a split, it should be outright divestment of any ownership, or controll period.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#712

Post by rolph »

mmastrac wrote: post #9
minimaxir wrote: post #2

Key line: > The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp

Splitting those two properties off would be fantastic. I know it's a pipe dream, but an independent Oculus would make me so happy. I suspect this is impossible due to the early nature of the VR market. Maybe just an FTC requirement _not_ to require a FB login?

considering some of the things that facebook has been used for it should be very careful about what it does with VR/AR and the potential for use as a HUD facilitating an attacker and providing them with a support team

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#713

Post by mthoms »

TylerE wrote: post #705
mthoms wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said they "tend go down for maintenance " on " any big price swings" but were only able to muster one example of one exchange going down "for maintenance" on one price swing (Bitfinex). The others, as the articles point out, were trade volume related (which is also a problem, but much less sinister). There's no evidence this is some kind of grand conspiracy like you implied. There's plenty to criticise in Crypto,…

You're moving the goalposts. A day when everyone is trying to get their "money" out is the definition of a high volume day.

No, I'm not challenging the premise, I'm challenging your framing.

Your comment implied sinister intent: That exchanges go offline at key times in order to scam people.

No evidence was provided of that. The sources you provided point to technical problems that are perfectly understandable during a massive, unpredicted surge in such a technically complex field.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#716

Post by monetus »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #496
monetus wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your friend isn't a user of the company to which the data is exported, then maybe that friend's data could be served from FB's servers, or your own, and only decypted client side. This of course cuts them off from being able to monetize swaths of user data which isn't unilaterally owned by one user, but it would be privacy respecting to your friend wouldn't it? Open protocols with medical-data like regulation righ…

What's to prevent the other company from simply saving the user data which is decrypted by their client? You think Cambridge-Analytica didn't store offline backups of all the data they gathered from the Facebook graph APIs?

When I wrote that, I was thinking of a dns-over-https like system and browsers being the client. You're right. A company could pipe the data back to their servers even if it was only decrypted on the user's device and it was illegal.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#717

Post by cynoclast »

mmastrac wrote: post #9
minimaxir wrote: post #2

Key line: > The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp

Splitting those two properties off would be fantastic. I know it's a pipe dream, but an independent Oculus would make me so happy. I suspect this is impossible due to the early nature of the VR market. Maybe just an FTC requirement _not_ to require a FB login?

I was interested in VR before FB bought Oculus and was considering it as an option. But the instant FB bought it I wrote it off as an option because I knew there would be fuckery down the road.

And guess what? If FB bans the FB account you're forced to link your Oculus to you, can't use it anymore.

Unbelievable behvior.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#718

Post by TylerE »

mthoms wrote: post #713
TylerE wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're moving the goalposts. A day when everyone is trying to get their "money" out is the definition of a high volume day.

No, I'm not challenging the premise, I'm challenging your framing. Your comment implied sinister intent : That exchanges go offline at key times in order to scam people. No evidence was provided of that. The sources you provided point to technical problems that are perfectly understandable during a massive, unpredicted surge in such a technically complex field.

There is a long history of exchanges explicitly scamming people.

Way beyond giving them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#719

Post by rhizome »

chillacy wrote: post #304
rhizome wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might read up on the Trusts era that brought about the Sherman Act[1]. Trains? Horse carriages and wagons were still available, not to mention boats. However, these are not equal modes of travel, though they are "similar" in that they are transportation , and so it's not about internet-based communities per se. It's the fact that Facebook is "Facebook" that is the problem. That you can't imagine Facebook's equal…

By this definition it seems like every social media app, by virtue of it being different, is a monopoly of its own? Eg: Twitter is “Twitter” that is the problem.

I don't understand, are you saying something like "Oreo has a monopoly on being Oreos?" If so, that's a pretty naive and narrow conception. In other words, "no, that isn't the problem."

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#720

Post by Calamity »

romanhn wrote: post #246
dopamean wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the case of instagram you didnt need hindsight to know it was a good deal. Lots of people thought they price they paid was incredible value on the day it was announced. Plenty of ink has been spilled that year about facebook potentially being in trouble with mobile and instagram seemed at the time to be an obvious solution to the problem.

That is not my recollection whatsoever. A quick read through the HN reactions that day ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840 ) shows a mix of bewilderment and belief that this is a defensive play. Very few people actually opined that Instagram represented much actual value.

Wow, thanks for providing that link. It really amazes me to see how much we don't even realize we attribute to hindsight.
Post reply on HN