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

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#91

Post by Digit-Al »

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…

I remember many (many) years ago I used to frequent a small independent video rental shop. Then, one day a Blockbuster opened next door (and when I say next door, I do mean literally next door) offering a larger range of videos to rent and much cheaper prices. Within about three months the independent had gone out of business and shut down, at which point the Blockbuster jacked their prices up to what the independent had been charging.

It was incredibly blatant and I felt sorry for the poor guy that had been running the independent business.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#92

Post by BlueTemplar »

n4r9 wrote: post #40
koakuma-chan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the way this article reads Zuck is being derided specifically for getting caught.

That's certainly true. But this is Cory Doctorow who invented the concept of enshittification. I'd be super surprised if he thought anti-competetive behaviour is fine as long as you get away with it. My take is that he's saying "Not only is Zuckerberg a greedy asshole, but he's even stupid enough to make it provable in court."

Probably with some shades of 'shameless' / "everybody I know is doing it, and if it's normal it can't be illegal" too.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#93

Post by 52-6F-62 »

balls187 wrote: post #54
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).

The word that is not used often to describe their worldview is the most accurate: medieval.

It isn’t just jargon. They are building castles against perceived enemies and everyone is an enemy. They are striving to be the Normans taking England, embedding themselves in every realm, region, barony, and parish, rewriting the rules in the name of progress either by woo or by force, and eliminating the natives. Up go the walls, round go the moats, and out point the guns.

The last startup I worked at was primarily concerned with loyalty above most else. Loyalty to what?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#94

Post by t3783783jf »

Gud wrote: post #78
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…

According to? What do they bring to the table? A dystopian future, greed and destruction. They are not my leaders. I look to individuals like Bill Joy, Linus Thorvalds and Theo de Raadt. People who roll up their sleeves and build amazing things. Parasites like Zuckerberg and Thiel can go to hell for all I care.

You remind me of this interview with Alan Kay:

https://futureofcoding.org/notes/alan-kay-lunch.html

In the piece the notion that what we need to solve our problems is more people like Joy, Torvalds and de Raadt and less people like Zuckerberg, Gates, and Bezos is gently alluded to, and I think it's a powerful point.

I'd nearly go on and suggest things like Tools for Conviviality, or some Cory Doctorow stuff. But in any case it's a lovely interview, maybe it's a good enough start.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#96

Post by BlueTemplar »

BigGreenJorts wrote: post #90
BlueTemplar wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that at least part of the reason is that Netflix (despite being much less relevant) is in the Silicon Valley, while Microsoft is not. So this is specifically a Silicon Valley / Hacker News thing (notably relevant to lifestyle and employment issues). The rest of the world has been using GAFAM instead, even before 2013. (I've also seen "the big 5" sometimes.)

But Amazon is also based in Washington

Thanks, uh, I am not sure how I missed that...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#97

Post by fallingknife »

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.

That movie was made almost entirely based off of the story as told by people who were at the time suing Mark Zuckerberg. It is the farthest you can get from fair.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#98

Post by tlb »

Juliate wrote: post #50
tlb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By itself, becoming a monopoly can be legal & ethical. But once you have a monopoly, you're not allowed to do certain things like buying competitors for the purpose of crushing them.

What verifiable existing/attempting monopoly today is ethical?

They are about as ethical as non-monopoly businesses. Which is to say that some are bad and most are OK.

I guess some people think all business is unethical, but for those people monopolies don't change the sign.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#99

Post by JKCalhoun »

nailer wrote: post #88
JKCalhoun wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading this correct, there is no law that says they have to do this, but they have to do this.

The law says they have to do this. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

Apparently, from my research, it's not the law.

There's fiduciary "duty", but not law. Judge's apparently give wide berth to management to decide what, perhaps long term, is going to be profitable.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#100

Post by nailer »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #99
nailer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law says they have to do this. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

Apparently, from my research, it's not the law. There's fiduciary "duty", but not law. Judge's apparently give wide berth to management to decide what, perhaps long term, is going to be profitable.

Fair enough that makes good sense. What bothers me is that Ford’s actions probably were in a good long-term interests of Ford. It seems the ruling was very much focused on the short-term interests.
Post reply on HN