FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization(ftc.gov)
ftc.gov
FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization
733 comments
This is a stub comment to hold all the replies to the parent. I did not mean to explode an offtopicness charge, and usually turn off replies for these because the same issue comes up every time and the answer is always the same. (When it comes to explaining something, the internet is stateless [1].) Forgot to do so in this case! I'll move them now.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
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.
This stuff is for performance reasons:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Maybe for pagination purposes the multiple pages could be enumerated right after the opening header and we could spot right away the prolific set of comments a given post has attracted. That would make things pretty discoverable right off the bat.
Yeah this is the right solution. Just add a link to the page numbers at the top of the thread. It's unintrusive, and still follows the minimalist design tenants of this website.
or put previous/next links in a line at the start of the comments, instead of just 'more' all the way at the bottom.
i wonder if they're constrained because their staff can't maintain the codebase well in the nonstandard arc language, and pg obviously has retired
i wonder if they're constrained because their staff can't maintain the codebase well in the nonstandard arc language, and pg obviously has retired
Didn’t realize this was all running on arc. Ironically this will become a pipeline problem.
Oh no—we love arc and we're good at it.
Edit: reasonably good.
Edit: reasonably good.
The pagination is only because of performance issues on the server to begin with. Rather than adding extra complexity at the top of the thread, the solution is to improve performance and render the whole page like we used to.
It is a courtesy, there is no real need for the post; the "More" link is quite discoverable.
I don't think this extremely minor issue warrants cluttering the UI with additional "page 1 2 3 ..." links at the top.
I don't think this extremely minor issue warrants cluttering the UI with additional "page 1 2 3 ..." links at the top.
the more link is so easy to miss that dang thinks every front page post with multiple pages of comments needs a pinned comment with links to next pages.
> there is no real need for the post; the "More" link is quite discoverable.
No its not atleast for me. I just miss it and looks like lot of others miss it as well.
No its not atleast for me. I just miss it and looks like lot of others miss it as well.
Plus one.
[deleted]
Yes, everyone knows that, it just hasn't been done yet.
No.
Dang, please do not change the UI.
Dang, please do not change the UI.
Here's a thought for UI change for HN, at the top of any page such as this one with a great many posts, that has multiple pages, how about a text-based chooser menu with clickable numbers that looks like:
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 > End
or similar...
Located directly below the add comment button.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 > End
or similar...
Located directly below the add comment button.
I think everyone knows that the UX is bad. The work just has to be done, and it's not particularly critical.
If I know anything about software, it's been in HN's issue tracker for years.
If I know anything about software, it's been in HN's issue tracker for years.
This UX may be bad, but the current hackish solution of a parent comment being posted with link to the other pages is the worst.
That's on purpose:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087113
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25065663
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24042165
If you guys complain enough about these comments at the top of the threads, it might actually get me to finish the damn performance improvements so I guess keep complaining.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087113
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25065663
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24042165
If you guys complain enough about these comments at the top of the threads, it might actually get me to finish the damn performance improvements so I guess keep complaining.
Dang, is there a GitHub repo where we can contribute, file a pull request, and see what happens?
I only see the API available, not any of the front-end: https://github.com/HackerNews
I only see the API available, not any of the front-end: https://github.com/HackerNews
It is a black box. An enigma, wrapped in mystery and covered in secret sauce.
And now we know why most of the time dang posts these comments, he more explicitly states that they're working on a better pagination solution, and this is a temporary measure until then...
Who the heck has time to read all these comments???
I feel like instead of pushing for the companies to separate, congress should pass laws mandating [adversarial interoperability](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...). Then the data (including the social graph) really would belong to the users, and facebook would have to compete with multiple other “social network clients” that would rapidly emerge. Facebook would lose some monopoly profits, but in the long-run they might even make more money - they have a lot of very smart practical engineers (at least based on seeing their approach to writing libraries e.g. react vs angular, pytorch vs tensorflow etc.) So if forced to compete, I think they would do just fine, particularly because I believe that the ecosystem would develop faster in the presence of real, and actually grow the market beyond what it would otherwise be.
There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting.
Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.
Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.
I think there is a lack of imagination here.
Perhaps a "social graph" shouldn't belong to any company. The concept itself might be anti-privacy.
Perhaps it's time to move back to simpler things like OPML. (Which people seem more comfortable sharing freely - not sure if that's still a "social graph" tho.)
Perhaps specific relationship details shouldn't be housed in the social network - just the permission to follow.
Perhaps companies who house a "social graph" should be regulated - similar to what is done with medical data. It should be a toxic substance.
I just think we're a long way from doing this right and there are a lot of untried options - and I lack imagination as well.
Perhaps a "social graph" shouldn't belong to any company. The concept itself might be anti-privacy.
Perhaps it's time to move back to simpler things like OPML. (Which people seem more comfortable sharing freely - not sure if that's still a "social graph" tho.)
Perhaps specific relationship details shouldn't be housed in the social network - just the permission to follow.
Perhaps companies who house a "social graph" should be regulated - similar to what is done with medical data. It should be a toxic substance.
I just think we're a long way from doing this right and there are a lot of untried options - and I lack imagination as well.
Social graphs are really useful for detecting idea contagion though. Facebook obviously has the tools to fight propaganda, they have one of the most granular datasets of people data ever assembled in human history. They are just addicted to the ad dollars. It is a shame they killed their delightful API.
Good riddance to them.
Good riddance to them.
Seeing sharing in a social graph is easy. Defining what is "propaganda" is all but impossible.
It’s advertising Facebook isn’t getting paid for.
I’m surprised they don’t go after it as a violation of their terms of service.
I’m surprised they don’t go after it as a violation of their terms of service.
It drives engagement which likely leads to overall more add views and clicks? "Doom scrolling" and such is something that keeps people on the site for longer which is probably one of their most important metrics
The actually have metrics for things such as dividedness and unrest. I wouldn’t be surprised they could do an analysis on propaganda.
Also, not asking right wing “news” orgs to be fact checkers or having GOP operatives override content policy team decisions regarding misleading stories that were reported by users would be another great way to reduce “propaganda”.
It’s not a technically unsolvable problem, it’s just one Facebook doesn’t want to solve. Don’t give them a free pass.
They are a multi billion dollar company, they have the all the ressources they need if they cared.
Also, not asking right wing “news” orgs to be fact checkers or having GOP operatives override content policy team decisions regarding misleading stories that were reported by users would be another great way to reduce “propaganda”.
It’s not a technically unsolvable problem, it’s just one Facebook doesn’t want to solve. Don’t give them a free pass.
They are a multi billion dollar company, they have the all the ressources they need if they cared.
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 down all thinking on the internet? Who watches the watchers?
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 down all thinking on the internet? Who watches the watchers?
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.
By definition that is almost every communication that a human makes, whether through art, technical books, education, news, opinion pieces etc. They are all attempts to influence an audience and there’s always some kind of agenda behind it.
> Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.[1] Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda.
> In the 20th century, the term propaganda was often associated with a manipulative approach, but historically, propaganda has been a neutral descriptive term.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
> In the 20th century, the term propaganda was often associated with a manipulative approach, but historically, propaganda has been a neutral descriptive term.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
This is about as rigorous as the questions by those wondering how Facebook could possibly be a monopoly when other websites exist (exaggerating only slightly). Do you know what "discourse" is? It's "how people talk about something," which is what propaganda is designed and intended to manipulate. "Pie tastes good" is not that.
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.
How about a simpler principle: harm reduction.
Letting people be mislead about vaccines harms people, letting people get brainwashed into mistrusting the legitimacy of their institutions harms people, letting people use their platform to incite genocide harms people.
They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement.
Don’t “both sides” death and misery. It’s not a philosophy debate.
Letting people be mislead about vaccines harms people, letting people get brainwashed into mistrusting the legitimacy of their institutions harms people, letting people use their platform to incite genocide harms people.
They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement.
Don’t “both sides” death and misery. It’s not a philosophy debate.
> They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement.
To be fair they are clearly fighting a delicate balance of censorship and community moderation. It's different from say a forum of yesteryear, because a forum can have a clear set of community values that should work for everyone.
Facebook and all social media is a single platform for many communities, and so given the new role of moderator they are in the impossible position of making a set of community values that apply to all communities.
I think the reason a lot of material isn't outright banned where you or I would see obvious misinformation or hate is because of this.
To be fair they are clearly fighting a delicate balance of censorship and community moderation. It's different from say a forum of yesteryear, because a forum can have a clear set of community values that should work for everyone.
Facebook and all social media is a single platform for many communities, and so given the new role of moderator they are in the impossible position of making a set of community values that apply to all communities.
I think the reason a lot of material isn't outright banned where you or I would see obvious misinformation or hate is because of this.
But This IS a philosophy debate. Fundamentally what is at stake here is how western society decides free speech is to be handled, and if it can be handled at all with social media.
I urge anyone here to define metrics for harm reduction that are operationable.
If you get any far with that, then tell me how you feel if the tools that will achieve these operational metrics were inverted in their purpose.
I urge anyone here to define metrics for harm reduction that are operationable.
If you get any far with that, then tell me how you feel if the tools that will achieve these operational metrics were inverted in their purpose.
You're confusing Constitutional rights with business models and editorial policies.
Also in the case of Covid vaccines, the heavy handed censorship being imposed seems to make people I know more nervous about the vaccine, as it is perceived to be "pushed" by those in power.
> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way.
If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy?
I think your objection is an accidental straw-man. I don't think it was intentionally made, it is a valid thought to ponder but it should exist independent of the question of sharing data.
If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy?
I think your objection is an accidental straw-man. I don't think it was intentionally made, it is a valid thought to ponder but it should exist independent of the question of sharing data.
I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook.
Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.
Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.
> People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook.
I don't think this is true.
Facebook tracks your activity all over the web on thousands of third-party sites and builds a unique profile to identify you, without regard for you having an account. You can't opt out of this if you don't have a Facebook account.
Some of these "social graph" features will do things like link two people as friend suggestions if they both have your phone number in their contacts book, even if you haven't consented to Facebook building up some information about you.
This doesn't sound like willing access & knowledge of what information you provide to Facebook.
Some of these "social graph" features will do things like link two people as friend suggestions if they both have your phone number in their contacts book, even if you haven't consented to Facebook building up some information about you.
This doesn't sound like willing access & knowledge of what information you provide to Facebook.
If you haven't consented to share your contacts with Facebook, but two people have consented who have you as a phone contact, then you're a link. This can be "interesting" when one of the parties has a duty to maintain privacy, like a psychiastrist. See this article: https://splinternews.com/facebook-recommended-that-this-psyc...
This explains a lot of the weirder suggestions I got in college. People I had done a group project with, but never communicated with outside of in-person, would show up as suggestions all the time. I'm sure in each of those cases there was one person in the group who everyone was in phone contact with.
Indeed. Also people do not sufficiently realize how much more can be deducted about the nature of a social relationship other than a mere "Person A knows Person B", if you combine it with the PII you have of both users (and even more if you consider the network in its entirety).
I guess that’s what separates me and you I have more faith in humanity. I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic.
PS by fighting this point you’re merely pointing out that giving more businesses this data isn’t a good idea
PS by fighting this point you’re merely pointing out that giving more businesses this data isn’t a good idea
"I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic"
It doesn't have to run on companies spying on their users either.
It doesn't have to run on companies spying on their users either.
Companies spying on people has existed since the beginning of business. You call it spying we call it market research.
Sam Walton of Walmart would record everything about his competitors legally and illegally as well as clients yet you never see that in the news, why? Because it’s not sexy, it’s not about the internet.
This is why Equifax which was a much more horrible data breach isn’t thought about, yet everyone gets their panties in a bunch about Facebook
Sam Walton of Walmart would record everything about his competitors legally and illegally as well as clients yet you never see that in the news, why? Because it’s not sexy, it’s not about the internet.
This is why Equifax which was a much more horrible data breach isn’t thought about, yet everyone gets their panties in a bunch about Facebook
I willingly gave Facebook information about me, although at the time I had no idea what they were going to do with it. However, I did not willingly give FB my phone number (they asked my friends to give that to them via the contact list in their phone). I did not willing give FB personalized training data for recognizing my face; FB weaponized my friends into doing that.
I'm sure Facebook buys all the data on you that it can, which in America is an amazing amount of information. Your auto mechanic is likely already selling what is being done to your car to CarFax, etc.
Ok so what about the bank then? Hell equifax had a horrible social security outbreak yet somehow idiots are still mad at Facebook vs the government
Can a consumer buy this data? I suspect I'm getting too many bushings and brake rotors but haven't kept track.
This is an excellent idea! Someone should create a company that buys all the data that is available about people, structures and correlates it and then sells it back to the people
The ironic beauty in that would be awesome. Also, I'd kind of like to get it about myself for similar reasons :)
The ironic beauty in that would be awesome. Also, I'd kind of like to get it about myself for similar reasons :)
Usually they only sell to businesses. For "privacy".
People willingly gave Facebook their social graph thinking it let them share photos and messages with their friends.
They had no real idea what else it would or is being used for.
They had no real idea what else it would or is being used for.
Not everyone has willingly given their social graph to Facebook.
Facebook builds shadow profiles on non-users and then fills them out with, amongst other things, data it gets from their actual users that they didn't no they were sharing.
This is particularly sneaky when Facebook has used dark patterns to trick app users into granting them permissions they don't strictly need for service.
Facebook builds shadow profiles on non-users and then fills them out with, amongst other things, data it gets from their actual users that they didn't no they were sharing.
This is particularly sneaky when Facebook has used dark patterns to trick app users into granting them permissions they don't strictly need for service.
Putting your data publicly online can be not only used by Facebook but all your friends too, hell sometimes profile images end up on google, so just because they had no real idea it shouldn’t be facebooks fault if your friends decide to print screen your photo and redistribute it. That data you put out publicly is public once it’s in public domain the public will use it
Disney seems to have a different idea of "public domain" from you. Why don't I have the copyright to my life, if Disney has the copyright to Iron Man?
Of course you do (GP is wrong) at least for media which you create that clears the threshold for copyright.
The difference is that Disney grants license to its content after (potentially drawn out) negotiations and payments, while the typical Facebook users "Agrees and accepts to grant Facebook a worldwide license"
BTW it doesn't confer a license (mostly) to anybody else but normal users do not sue.
The difference is that Disney grants license to its content after (potentially drawn out) negotiations and payments, while the typical Facebook users "Agrees and accepts to grant Facebook a worldwide license"
BTW it doesn't confer a license (mostly) to anybody else but normal users do not sue.
collect every piece of data about yourself you can think of, copyright the publication, issue DMCA taketowns on your intellectual property
I don’t know about you but whenever I take a picture and share it with friends I trust that the company who’s picture I just gave two he’s going to make the best use of it on their platform.
They have to monetize and I approve.
Hell I’m willing to bet if Facebook puts into their agreement that every photo you upload to their platform is partially owned by them then people will still upload photos.
It’s not the data that we find valuable, it’s the connections they make or will make, and to this company. Next time you take a photo and find it’s shared with not just Facebook but a whole slew of other companies you tell me if that’s the right thing to do.
The person above said “do you trust all Facebook employees” well you can make that blanket argument for every company in existence and giving more companies our data isn’t a good solution
They have to monetize and I approve.
Hell I’m willing to bet if Facebook puts into their agreement that every photo you upload to their platform is partially owned by them then people will still upload photos.
It’s not the data that we find valuable, it’s the connections they make or will make, and to this company. Next time you take a photo and find it’s shared with not just Facebook but a whole slew of other companies you tell me if that’s the right thing to do.
The person above said “do you trust all Facebook employees” well you can make that blanket argument for every company in existence and giving more companies our data isn’t a good solution
By ‘used for’, I don’t mean that people might display the photo somewhere you didn’t want.
I mean Facebook might perform facial recognition on your photos and infer connections to other people you didn’t explicitly tell them about.
I mean that facebook might track your location and app launches and identify where you go on vacation and when you shop.
These are the kinds of thing nobody gave consent for.
I mean Facebook might perform facial recognition on your photos and infer connections to other people you didn’t explicitly tell them about.
I mean that facebook might track your location and app launches and identify where you go on vacation and when you shop.
These are the kinds of thing nobody gave consent for.
I mean this has and is already happening. Example a foster kid was suggested to be friends with his father, in some cases it’s great, two long lost siblings or parents/children’s reunited. In other cases people complain.
The consent thing can both be good and bad, just like the invention of the internet and electricity before that. I’m trying to make that point that giving away your data is gonna be a commodity once everyone realizes they’re not a special snowflake
The consent thing can both be good and bad, just like the invention of the internet and electricity before that. I’m trying to make that point that giving away your data is gonna be a commodity once everyone realizes they’re not a special snowflake
Well, the issue is that they do have that sort of data. Massive firms exist to commingle all variety of data with FB’s social graph.
Check out LiveRamp for example; they literally scan in physical documents like car mechanic paperwork (seriously) and dropship them into S3 buckets to huge data brokers every day.
Take that and merge it with facebook’s social graph, how many ms you look at a photo on Instagram and how long you take to reply to someone on WeChat, and you have an awful lot to work with.
Check out LiveRamp for example; they literally scan in physical documents like car mechanic paperwork (seriously) and dropship them into S3 buckets to huge data brokers every day.
Take that and merge it with facebook’s social graph, how many ms you look at a photo on Instagram and how long you take to reply to someone on WeChat, and you have an awful lot to work with.
People willingly give permission for Facebook to share their data, too.
What difference does that make? Facebook almost certainly knows my banking information, without me giving it directly to them
What difference does that make? Facebook almost certainly knows my banking information, without me giving it directly to them
[deleted]
Could there be some kind of granular permissions (with privacy-first defaults) to mitigate this problem?
Piping in with a very tangential thought:
Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
If we accept that premise, let's think about what we are losing. In my understanding, there are two main reasons why privacy is so important:
1) Allowing individuals to avoid becoming targets of persecution for having some attribute. Targeting by oppressive governments for holding idea X, targeting by an evil megacorp for threatening to disrupt industry Y, etc.
2) Allowing individuals to avoid social stigmatization and shame for having some attribute. Getting caught eating one's boogers, viewing porn of people dressed up as pieces of furniture, etc.
For point 1, I think the real issue is imbalance of information. Schemes to abuse access to someones previously private information mostly wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny themselves. Unless, of course, you have some ultra-powerful organization like a well run totalitarian regime, in which case individuals by definition have no privacy rights anyways.
For point 2, I think shrinking privacy will seriously reduce the social response to this kind of information. "So what if I watch porn of people dressed up as furniture; you masturbate while dipping your toes in peanut butter! That's way weirder!" Sure, there are plenty of painfully normal people out there, but I think most shameful weirdness would become commonplace when the full extent of weirdness is out in the open.
All that being said, I do think anonymity is important, and can probably be preserved, as it is distinct from privately acting in physical space, or online while tied to some form of identity. Also, I don't want to argue against efforts to preserve and advance privacy for individuals for as long as possible. I just think that per point 1, we might want to devote effort to reducing the privacy of organizations to try to maintain parity of information access as our individual privacy slips away.
Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
If we accept that premise, let's think about what we are losing. In my understanding, there are two main reasons why privacy is so important:
1) Allowing individuals to avoid becoming targets of persecution for having some attribute. Targeting by oppressive governments for holding idea X, targeting by an evil megacorp for threatening to disrupt industry Y, etc.
2) Allowing individuals to avoid social stigmatization and shame for having some attribute. Getting caught eating one's boogers, viewing porn of people dressed up as pieces of furniture, etc.
For point 1, I think the real issue is imbalance of information. Schemes to abuse access to someones previously private information mostly wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny themselves. Unless, of course, you have some ultra-powerful organization like a well run totalitarian regime, in which case individuals by definition have no privacy rights anyways.
For point 2, I think shrinking privacy will seriously reduce the social response to this kind of information. "So what if I watch porn of people dressed up as furniture; you masturbate while dipping your toes in peanut butter! That's way weirder!" Sure, there are plenty of painfully normal people out there, but I think most shameful weirdness would become commonplace when the full extent of weirdness is out in the open.
All that being said, I do think anonymity is important, and can probably be preserved, as it is distinct from privately acting in physical space, or online while tied to some form of identity. Also, I don't want to argue against efforts to preserve and advance privacy for individuals for as long as possible. I just think that per point 1, we might want to devote effort to reducing the privacy of organizations to try to maintain parity of information access as our individual privacy slips away.
I think your point is interesting if not conclusive, and I think your down-voters missed your final paragraph, but I think you're missing something here:
> The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is difficult to prevent (and sometimes difficult to detect).
Whether trying to use the law to deter here is worthwhile, meaningless, or harmful isn't necessarily clear - but it deserves consideration in addition to outright prevention.
> The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is difficult to prevent (and sometimes difficult to detect).
Whether trying to use the law to deter here is worthwhile, meaningless, or harmful isn't necessarily clear - but it deserves consideration in addition to outright prevention.
I'm afraid it's like forbidding drugs.
It definitely somehow limits their use, but anybody really interested is able to obtain them illegally, or produce them themselves.
I'm afraid the same will be true about micro-drones or whatever else the post suggests.
It definitely somehow limits their use, but anybody really interested is able to obtain them illegally, or produce them themselves.
I'm afraid the same will be true about micro-drones or whatever else the post suggests.
I definitely agree that there's a risk of that, but I think it deserves to be included in the analysis.
It's different from drugs in that one of the participants is unwilling, though I don't know whether that's a big enough difference - particularly given that that participant is also unwitting.
It's different from drugs in that one of the participants is unwilling, though I don't know whether that's a big enough difference - particularly given that that participant is also unwitting.
What you lose is autonomy.
Facebook doesn't even let other apps access the social graph if users approve it.
You can only briefly see which friends have also already signed up.
You can only briefly see which friends have also already signed up.
> then why is it okay for a single company to have that access?
I'd say it's not ok, but people keep on giving Facebook all that information (and it's very tempting to do so). There are technical solutions which anonymize/privatize social network information, and then no entity has such access.
I'd say it's not ok, but people keep on giving Facebook all that information (and it's very tempting to do so). There are technical solutions which anonymize/privatize social network information, and then no entity has such access.
If you can see the data, you can share the data. Preventing sharing is exactly as possible as DRM, i.e. only doable by outlawing general-purpose computing.
So while I value privacy, I'm not sympathetic to using privacy as an argument to restrict your own access to your Facebook data, for you to decide yourself on how that's shared. If you misuse your view of your friends' data, that's on you and up to your friends to punish/discourage you for.
So while I value privacy, I'm not sympathetic to using privacy as an argument to restrict your own access to your Facebook data, for you to decide yourself on how that's shared. If you misuse your view of your friends' data, that's on you and up to your friends to punish/discourage you for.
Technically you can, but should you?
Your sharing your FB friends data with third parties, could be seen by the friends as impolite or even hostile. It's a matter of trust between friends, not technical ability.
Your sharing your FB friends data with third parties, could be seen by the friends as impolite or even hostile. It's a matter of trust between friends, not technical ability.
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 too after having been acquired by Mail.Ru Group — but you can still integrate it into whatever the hell you want with ease.
I'm not defending VK — it does some increasingly user-hostile stuff too after having been acquired by Mail.Ru Group — but you can still integrate it into whatever the hell you want with ease.
> Somehow, this hasn't turned into a privacy nightmare in more than 10 years the API was available.
How would you know?
How would you know?
Most of the data you can access through the API is public anyway. You could as well scrape it off the website, API just provides it in a more convenient format. For example, you're able to get profiles and friend lists and posts of arbitrary people, as long as they're publicly visible, without real authentication (but you do need a "service token" you get on the app settings page).
The worst thing to ever happen with that open data was that some debt collection agencies used it to threaten people and their friends, and I believe that's why those service tokens were introduced. And that story was rather widely publicized: https://www.the-village.ru/business/finance/217569-banki-pis... for example.
The worst thing to ever happen with that open data was that some debt collection agencies used it to threaten people and their friends, and I believe that's why those service tokens were introduced. And that story was rather widely publicized: https://www.the-village.ru/business/finance/217569-banki-pis... for example.
That's a pretty quick backpedal from your previous post.
Federal Security Service assures us there is no privacy problem.
Isn't there an app that lets you take/provide a photo of somebody's face and get their VK profile?
FindFace? It shut down its user-facing service several years ago and focused on selling its technology. There are rumors it has some government contracts.
Now there's FindClone instead. And I would consider finding somebody's identity by matching a photo of them with a database of VK profile pictures a privacy nightmare. I don't know If they got the pictures via an API or scraping, but it shows what can be done with easy access to this kind of data. People used FindFace to deanonymize porn actresses and out them to family for instance.
https://towardsdatascience.com/steeling-faces-for-investigat...
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/05/02/facial-recogniti...
https://towardsdatascience.com/steeling-faces-for-investigat...
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/05/02/facial-recogniti...
"It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting."
Facebook itself is a third party.
Facebook itself is a third party.
But you could get your own data and the list of people authorized to see it, and pass that to a third party. If you and one of your friends both move to another network, you get to see each other's data. Any problem with this?
What if I don't want you telling folks that you are my friend? Why do you get to divulge this information to a third party that I know nothing about?
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 <A friend B> 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 time seeing the case for "B prevents A from telling C that A and B are friends".
Another aspect of this though, is "how much can A tell C about B without permission from B?" We know that IRL, people do get angry when friends reveal overly personal details about their lives to others, so this is definitely something to consider.
I think a case could be made that knowledge that <A friend B> 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 time seeing the case for "B prevents A from telling C that A and B are friends".
Another aspect of this though, is "how much can A tell C about B without permission from B?" We know that IRL, people do get angry when friends reveal overly personal details about their lives to others, so this is definitely something to consider.
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.
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.
Like that Seinfeld episode where George _happily_ gives Jerry's address to the dog owner...
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.
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.
Want is different from entitled.
Then we have to dispense away with the whole privacy nonsense that runs rampant on HN concerning things such as ad tracking, location tracking and other data metrics. Because in that case, instead of the friend giving away our data, it's a 3rd party with whom we have a voluntary relationship with who is giving away THEIR data that we generate.
Surely that could be solved by crypto? I.e. you don't actually get a list of names, but list of asymmetric keys, and when your friend joins their key can match the one in my list?
I think it becomes a "defaults" problem. Lots of people do not understand or care about "the social graph" so when prompted for consent to allow someone else to export them in a social graph, they simply click whatever gets them into Facebook the fastest. That also has the negative effect of giving companies an out when confronted with privacy concerns. It's like shrink wrap licenses. You can always say someone agreed, even if they didn't understand it in any meaningful way.
Sure you can - store social graph data on users local machine or some trusted third party, ship the social media application code to the data.
> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting.
If the API is open and there's forced interoperability, the client device can call the service's API directly with the user's own credentials. No need for a third-party middleman, so no need to give a third-party access to the data.
It can work the same way IM applications like Pidgin work: one app, multiple accounts.
If the API is open and there's forced interoperability, the client device can call the service's API directly with the user's own credentials. No need for a third-party middleman, so no need to give a third-party access to the data.
It can work the same way IM applications like Pidgin work: one app, multiple accounts.
When i add phone numbers to my phones contact list i don’t expect Apple to own it. And if i want another app to use my contacts on my phone I’m ok with that. I think opening up the social graph via API would be essential to real competition and a wealth of other apps and companies can be created. Granular access can be given so that isn’t exploited. They have the funds needed to build it out from their billions of profits.
> It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting.
Why? If they shared it with me, that should mean they trust me to decide to whom I delegate the access no? I could as well just screenshot it and post it to twitter, what does make the social graph so special?
Why? If they shared it with me, that should mean they trust me to decide to whom I delegate the access no? I could as well just screenshot it and post it to twitter, what does make the social graph so special?
I was thinking the same thing. How many of us blindly save contact data to our phones or other PIM software, then back it up online to a Google, Apple, or Samsung service? Do they need my contacts' consent? If I were to ask my friends, "Is it okay if I back up your contact informarion to Samsung's online service?" they would think I was weird for asking.
This is pretty rich consider that people don't even hesitate to put your literal face on Facebook whenever they please.
The point is to move toward standards around social data and then force the big tech companies to allow each user to export their own data, quickly, in these interoperable formats.
The point is to move toward standards around social data and then force the big tech companies to allow each user to export their own data, quickly, in these interoperable formats.
I heard the same argument about providing personal health data, then CMS eventually started pushing Project Blue Button [0] allowing users to get api access to their own data. And that’s helped quite a bit.
There is risk, but saying that users can’t be trusted with an API to their own social graph seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
[0] https://www.healthit.gov/topic/health-it-initiatives/blue-bu...
There is risk, but saying that users can’t be trusted with an API to their own social graph seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
[0] https://www.healthit.gov/topic/health-it-initiatives/blue-bu...
This.
The counter-argument to this is having the government provide the graph and an API to allow networks like Facebook connect to it. This should rightly terrify just about everybody.
I like the concept Diaspora had back in the day, it just wasn't workable really as your mum/aunt/non-tech friend wouldn't be able to understand how something like that works and would ultimately lose/delete/corrupt their tokens.
The counter-argument to this is having the government provide the graph and an API to allow networks like Facebook connect to it. This should rightly terrify just about everybody.
I like the concept Diaspora had back in the day, it just wasn't workable really as your mum/aunt/non-tech friend wouldn't be able to understand how something like that works and would ultimately lose/delete/corrupt their tokens.
wow, that's the "non proliferation" argument. it's the first time I see it applied since the cold war. I guess I should have expected it. it's the nuclear warhead equivalent argument when you're justifying a monoply
Multisig encryption? Revoke key access to anyone you don't want to share your info with. Not sure if this is actually practical. Just a hunch on a potential solution.
> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way.
Multiparty secure computation is one possible way. There are a few, emerging implementations.
Multiparty secure computation is one possible way. There are a few, emerging implementations.
You encrypt user data and provide decryption keys to the service once a user actually signs up.
"As a user, I want to be opted out of this 'feature' by default"
It's kind of amazing how most even tech people don't seem to understand this.
The comment says "there's no way." I can think of at least one which involves a user manually downloading the data and then manually uploading it to another service.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that if I export my social graph and share it with another company, it includes information about who my friends are -- at the very least, it shows that they are my friends. That violates their privacy. Maybe they did not want their relationship with me to be known outside the social network where they established it.
The problem is that if I export my social graph and share it with another company, it includes information about who my friends are -- at the very least, it shows that they are my friends. That violates their privacy. Maybe they did not want their relationship with me to be known outside the social network where they established it.
Im trying to understand, are you violating a friend's privacy now if you tell a random third party that you are friends with them?
Example, you are chatting at a party with someone and they ask you if you know Bob since he works at your company. You say yes and you say you are good friends with him. You violated Bob's privacy here?
Example, you are chatting at a party with someone and they ask you if you know Bob since he works at your company. You say yes and you say you are good friends with him. You violated Bob's privacy here?
There is a difference between someone mentioning, with intention (that they happen to know X and implying they could offer to make that introduction), and an automated system just bulk sharing a whole address book.
If the question were framed more like:
"Do you consent to sharing your entire address book, so that we can better market to you and your friends and offer targeted ads based on that data to our real customers?"
Would most people actually answer yes?
If the question were framed more like:
"Do you consent to sharing your entire address book, so that we can better market to you and your friends and offer targeted ads based on that data to our real customers?"
Would most people actually answer yes?
> and an automated system just bulk sharing a whole address book.
Presumably you would be granting this system access to this information.
>Would most people actually answer yes?
some people would, do they not have that option?
Presumably you would be granting this system access to this information.
>Would most people actually answer yes?
some people would, do they not have that option?
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 right?
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.
This is one of the things GDPR tries to achive.
> To further strengthen the control over his or her own data, where the processing of personal data is carried out by automated means, the data subject should also be allowed to receive personal data concerning him or her which he or she has provided to a controller in a structured, commonly used, machine-readable and interoperable format, and to transmit it to another controller.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-68/
> To further strengthen the control over his or her own data, where the processing of personal data is carried out by automated means, the data subject should also be allowed to receive personal data concerning him or her which he or she has provided to a controller in a structured, commonly used, machine-readable and interoperable format, and to transmit it to another controller.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-68/
And for a successful action on the same subject, see this recent Spotify / Songshift request from a user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
I agree and find the attempt at a breakup a bit frustrating. This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect and it's not really clear what the positives or negatives would be. For instance, FB has invested massively in trust and safety people operations and AI. What happens to that investment when IG is spun off?
Laying out laws and regulations so the market works as intended (no doubt with adjustments on the way) seems like the far preferable way to ensure healthy competition than taking a hammer to the job site and hoping for the best.
Laying out laws and regulations so the market works as intended (no doubt with adjustments on the way) seems like the far preferable way to ensure healthy competition than taking a hammer to the job site and hoping for the best.
> This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect
If FB is doing anti-competitive things than disruption is needed. It's not meant to be comfortable.
Companies are really good at learning the playing field and then gaming it for their benefits. Tweaks to laws are often easy to work around. Disruption that stops an illegal monopoly is going to be uncomfortable. Especially at first.
But, it opens the door for the future in ways that aren't options today.
If FB is doing anti-competitive things than disruption is needed. It's not meant to be comfortable.
Companies are really good at learning the playing field and then gaming it for their benefits. Tweaks to laws are often easy to work around. Disruption that stops an illegal monopoly is going to be uncomfortable. Especially at first.
But, it opens the door for the future in ways that aren't options today.
*then
But the product provides real value to real people today, why disrupt this? Also weren't these companies free to not accept an acquisition?
Andrew Carnegie provided far more real, unquestionable value to people too. It ended up being worth it. The same can be said for Leland Stanford or most other monopolies. They didn't become monopolies by not providing value.
> Andrew Carnegie provided far more real, unquestionable value to people too. It ended up being worth it. The same can be said for Leland Stanford or most other monopolies. They didn't become monopolies by not providing value.
Absolutely. The same could also be said of the closest parallel of Facebook in history, the Bell System.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
Absolutely. The same could also be said of the closest parallel of Facebook in history, the Bell System.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
Because move fast and brake things? Disruption good?
No, seriously, modern tech companies are an anti-trust challenge that was not truely forseen in existing anti-trust laws. That governments are now trying to find answers is a good thing.
No, seriously, modern tech companies are an anti-trust challenge that was not truely forseen in existing anti-trust laws. That governments are now trying to find answers is a good thing.
> Laying out laws and regulations so the market works as intended (no doubt with adjustments on the way) seems like the far preferable way to ensure healthy competition...
That's what antitrust/monopoly laws do.
That's what antitrust/monopoly laws do.
And yet, Facebook is untrustworthy, unsafe, and had developed AI that amplifies controversy...
The Facebook purchases of WhatsApp and Instagram were not innovative and should have triggered antitrust at the time. There is no healthy competition when you buy Any worthy competitors.
The Facebook purchases of WhatsApp and Instagram were not innovative and should have triggered antitrust at the time. There is no healthy competition when you buy Any worthy competitors.
In some sense this lawsuit is saying that the regulatory approvals of the Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions were errors.
How is the market going to fix that?
How is the market going to fix that?
It's not, because it makes them a bucket of money. Only in hindsight with an FTC in the final days of a mercurial administration do we get stuff like this.
Or, the winds are changing and the FTC under the current administration is following them. 46 states are siding with them, if that helps convince you.
Your answer sidesteps regulatory capture. These big companies wield massive power in Washington, don't you think any regulation and law that's actually passed will benefit them and prevent competition?
Tough. There is more at stake than FB recovering its investment into IG.
Besides... they will get to sell it, probably at a profit. They got to own it for 8 years, enjoyed the benefits of lowered competition. They will be fine. I agree that this should have been prevented in the first place, but we are where we are.
Controversially, I don't think ordinary rule of law can apply to FAANG-scale monopolies. There's no way to generalize rules, laws or industrial policies when the industry is "social media." Social media is (economically) mostly FB. Any rule, law or policy is basically regulating FB specifically.
Anyway, the danger of a hammer coming out is low. Even if prosecutors succeed, a cost-of-business fine is the most likely result. Even if they do spin out whatsapp & IG... that leaves facebook mostly intact.
I'd also note that the worst case scenario for overzealous trustbusting is basically nothing. At worst you kill FB. This isn't steel production or auto manufacturing. FB could be swallowed by a demon tomorrow and by next thursday any shortage in social media will be filled. We're not exactly short on the stuff.
FB bring in $80bn pa, but that's totally arbitrary to the cost of doing social networking. It could be done for $40bn or $8bn and I doubt the consumer would notice a difference. Again, this isn't auto manufacturing. A car company can't make as many cars with half the revenue. If one dies, we actually have less manufacturing capacity and we'll make fewer cars for a while. None of this applies to social media.
Besides... they will get to sell it, probably at a profit. They got to own it for 8 years, enjoyed the benefits of lowered competition. They will be fine. I agree that this should have been prevented in the first place, but we are where we are.
Controversially, I don't think ordinary rule of law can apply to FAANG-scale monopolies. There's no way to generalize rules, laws or industrial policies when the industry is "social media." Social media is (economically) mostly FB. Any rule, law or policy is basically regulating FB specifically.
Anyway, the danger of a hammer coming out is low. Even if prosecutors succeed, a cost-of-business fine is the most likely result. Even if they do spin out whatsapp & IG... that leaves facebook mostly intact.
I'd also note that the worst case scenario for overzealous trustbusting is basically nothing. At worst you kill FB. This isn't steel production or auto manufacturing. FB could be swallowed by a demon tomorrow and by next thursday any shortage in social media will be filled. We're not exactly short on the stuff.
FB bring in $80bn pa, but that's totally arbitrary to the cost of doing social networking. It could be done for $40bn or $8bn and I doubt the consumer would notice a difference. Again, this isn't auto manufacturing. A car company can't make as many cars with half the revenue. If one dies, we actually have less manufacturing capacity and we'll make fewer cars for a while. None of this applies to social media.
Imagine being so callous about putting 50,000+ people out of work overnight and calling it basically nothing.
Separating IG from FB does not put anyone out of work. Nothing gets shut down. FB are extremely profitable, and that almost certainly continues
In the last paragraph, I was trying illustrate a point. With monopolies of the past, the primary concern was that the services continue to operate somehow. EG, when Bell was broken up, the danger was that phone/telegram services would be harmed. Before that, the danger was that steel production would be disrupted and downstream industries harmed.
Facebook is a monopoly in a marketplace of extreme abundance. We have lots of social media, messaging, photo sharing, etc. There is zero danger of shortages or meaningful "consumer harm," regardless of what happens to FB.
Even if antitrust does harm FB, the only stakeholders at risk are FB employees and investors. There is no systemic risk, downstream risk, consumer risk. All the risk is contained within FB.
This doesn't mean FB should be killed. It does mean that the scale tips strongly towards antitrust. On one side, we have a lot of risk. On the other, very little.
In the last paragraph, I was trying illustrate a point. With monopolies of the past, the primary concern was that the services continue to operate somehow. EG, when Bell was broken up, the danger was that phone/telegram services would be harmed. Before that, the danger was that steel production would be disrupted and downstream industries harmed.
Facebook is a monopoly in a marketplace of extreme abundance. We have lots of social media, messaging, photo sharing, etc. There is zero danger of shortages or meaningful "consumer harm," regardless of what happens to FB.
Even if antitrust does harm FB, the only stakeholders at risk are FB employees and investors. There is no systemic risk, downstream risk, consumer risk. All the risk is contained within FB.
This doesn't mean FB should be killed. It does mean that the scale tips strongly towards antitrust. On one side, we have a lot of risk. On the other, very little.
People call for putting way more than 50,000+ people out of work all of the time (eliminating the oil and gas industry as an example). If the belief is those people are engaged in harmful activity, why wouldn't you want them to stop ASAP?
Imagine making your money off of what Zuckerberg has done to our fucking democracy.
> it's not really clear what the positives or negatives would be
Isn't this also true for Facebook itself as related to how dependent they are on revenue and at what cost that comes to the users who help generate it (by being presented as "eyeballs" to the advertisers)?
We used to let kids play with dry cleaning bags, until we discovered they were idiots and can suffocate on them.
The realization today is that parents were the actual idiots, not the kids.
Isn't this also true for Facebook itself as related to how dependent they are on revenue and at what cost that comes to the users who help generate it (by being presented as "eyeballs" to the advertisers)?
We used to let kids play with dry cleaning bags, until we discovered they were idiots and can suffocate on them.
The realization today is that parents were the actual idiots, not the kids.
>For instance, FB has invested massively in trust and safety people operations and AI. What happens to that investment when IG is spun off?
If what's being said is that those investments are important and necessary, then we should be looking for reasons to sustain them that aren't just about validating the continued existence of a monopoly.
If what's being said is that those investments are important and necessary, then we should be looking for reasons to sustain them that aren't just about validating the continued existence of a monopoly.
>I agree and find the attempt at a breakup a bit frustrating. This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect and it's not really clear what the positives or negatives would be.
This organization itself is disruptive. As interesting as it is to discuss the potential costs and benefits, there's been a very real cost to society for these issues. It makes no sense to wait for further damage reports if that's at the cost of further damage. It's simple cost vs benefits really. Also I thought disruption was a good thing..?
Downvoted so I'll just add one more thing; this isn't a conversation that is new. I'm coming to this with that context. Do I want them to fail? No. The desired outcome is that they will self regulate. But if not, there should be competition. Monopolies naturally have negative side effects, that's why we try to avoid them.
This organization itself is disruptive. As interesting as it is to discuss the potential costs and benefits, there's been a very real cost to society for these issues. It makes no sense to wait for further damage reports if that's at the cost of further damage. It's simple cost vs benefits really. Also I thought disruption was a good thing..?
Downvoted so I'll just add one more thing; this isn't a conversation that is new. I'm coming to this with that context. Do I want them to fail? No. The desired outcome is that they will self regulate. But if not, there should be competition. Monopolies naturally have negative side effects, that's why we try to avoid them.
In an ideal world, I'd like both. Mandated interoperability would help a great deal—but I also don't believe Facebook should ever have been allowed to buy Whatsapp, and it's worth undoing that.
Why? WhatsApp today is a great messaging app platform with end-to-end encryption.
What exactly makes it 'great?
No password access, login through SMS which can be intercepted, no 2FA, no access from another device while you phone is dead, compresses video to 2 pixels, no real crypto auth to speak of.
It does not seem to have any features that are better than Signal, telegram, messenger, or a dozen other apps. Why is it worth any awards or special consideration, besides being popular?
No password access, login through SMS which can be intercepted, no 2FA, no access from another device while you phone is dead, compresses video to 2 pixels, no real crypto auth to speak of.
It does not seem to have any features that are better than Signal, telegram, messenger, or a dozen other apps. Why is it worth any awards or special consideration, besides being popular?
> besides being popular
You're not wrong about any of this, but that final phrase weighs far more for most people than anything else. It is a communications app after all, and is only useful if there are people to communicate with.
You're not wrong about any of this, but that final phrase weighs far more for most people than anything else. It is a communications app after all, and is only useful if there are people to communicate with.
Just to be even more explicit-this isn’t “popularity” in the sense of a fashion trend. A communication app’s usefulness depends on the number of people with whom you can communicate.
But its not a valid criteria - If tomortow it somehow dissapeared, another app would take its place immediately
whatsapp has 2FA
The argument is that purchasing WhatsApp was anticompetitive and allowed Faceboook to cement their dominant market position. WhatsApp the app might be fine, but the competitive landscape is much weaker than it would have been if the FTC had blocked the acquisition.
I posted this elsewhere but I think Ben Thompson gives a very deep analysis of the issues in the competitive landscape here:
https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/
The summary would be something like "any acquisition of a social network by another social network is necessarily anticompetitive and should be banned, or at least have the presumption of being illegal".
The only way that there can be a true competitor to Facebook is for a smaller social network like Instagram, or WhatsApp, or TikTok, to not get acquired and to grow until their userbase is bigger.
Zuckerberg understands this well; you can read his emails where he openly admits that buying Instagram is about preempting a competitor:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21345723/facebook-instagr...
The money quote from Zuckerberg:
"There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it’s difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different.”
“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again. Within that time, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, those new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.”
I think you can apply the same argument to WhatsApp; by purchasing a rival social network, they prevent it from being a competitive threat.
I posted this elsewhere but I think Ben Thompson gives a very deep analysis of the issues in the competitive landscape here:
https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/
The summary would be something like "any acquisition of a social network by another social network is necessarily anticompetitive and should be banned, or at least have the presumption of being illegal".
The only way that there can be a true competitor to Facebook is for a smaller social network like Instagram, or WhatsApp, or TikTok, to not get acquired and to grow until their userbase is bigger.
Zuckerberg understands this well; you can read his emails where he openly admits that buying Instagram is about preempting a competitor:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21345723/facebook-instagr...
The money quote from Zuckerberg:
"There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it’s difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different.”
“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again. Within that time, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, those new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.”
I think you can apply the same argument to WhatsApp; by purchasing a rival social network, they prevent it from being a competitive threat.
WhatsApp is one of the most uncomfortable and confusing messaging apps, UX-wise, I've ever used. It's as if they wanted to replace SMS, but were passionate enough about it that they copied all the shortcomings and annoyances, too.
End-to-end encryption in a proprietary app is a joke. "Please trust us we encrypt your messages".
End-to-end encryption in a proprietary app is a joke. "Please trust us we encrypt your messages".
> WhatsApp today is a great messaging app
But it was pretty good before they bought it, too. And widely used, IIRC was clearly the biggest in some parts of the world.
But it was pretty good before they bought it, too. And widely used, IIRC was clearly the biggest in some parts of the world.
Exactly this. Because It was such a popular platform and possible social competitor is exactly the reason it shouldn’t have been allowed.
...and known backdoors, due to their custom implementation of the Signal encryption protocol.
Known backdoors? Can you back that up with a source?
Custom implementation is likely because they want to strike a balance between security and usability.
https://thehackernews.com/2017/01/whatsapp-encryption-backdo...
In short, their implementation allows to change the encryption keys of users without their consent to arbitrary, known keys. The protocol won't re-encrypt sent messages, but there is nothing in the protocol forcing the app to show a notification that your encryption key has changed, which amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack. Any subsequent messages sent or received using that encryption key will be exposed to the attacker.
Encryption keys are managed on servers controlled by WhatsApp.
In short, their implementation allows to change the encryption keys of users without their consent to arbitrary, known keys. The protocol won't re-encrypt sent messages, but there is nothing in the protocol forcing the app to show a notification that your encryption key has changed, which amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack. Any subsequent messages sent or received using that encryption key will be exposed to the attacker.
Encryption keys are managed on servers controlled by WhatsApp.
Wasn't this specific story debunked? (Don't shoot me, I'm genuinely asking)
The headline is false (“WhatsApp Backdoor allows Hackers to Intercept and Read Your Encrypted Messages”), in the sense that hackers can’t actually read and intercept WhatsApp messages. Normally the reporting of a security vulnerability includes a POC of an exploit. There isn’t one here, because hackers haven’t been able to exploit it. If an activist saw this story, got scared of WhatsApp, and decided to use SMS or Telegram instead (especially if they didn’t use the opt-in secret chats feature, which most people don’t), their security got weaker.
That doesn’t really refute the claim that this can be used as a backdoor, however. Since the backdoor is only usable by Whatsapp (or whoever controls them and their servers), a random researcher can’t really release a POC.
Disclaimer: I personally know nothing about beyond the posts in this thread.
Disclaimer: I personally know nothing about beyond the posts in this thread.
Did you miss the video in the link?
Did you click through the link at all?
It's curious that you are using a new account with a gibberish name to make all these claims.
Did you click through the link at all?
It's curious that you are using a new account with a gibberish name to make all these claims.
Infosec researchers euphemistically claimed it was a "design trade-off" but never explicitly claimed it can't be abused.
I honestly think that this story (from the title) is just a clickbait. Ofcourse you need a central server to share the keys and you need to trust that central server. How do you make sure WhatsApp hasn't changed the keys in middle - there is a scan QR functionality. I honestly don't know how these articles still remain active on websites even after proven wrong and obviously clickbaity
Agreed. Federated service or not, no corporation should have that much power.
I want Facebook to stop tracking me, not enable more of it. Which does this enable?
Stop using their free service and block their Javascript. Don't use apps built with their login framework.
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.
Facebook either buys or crushes all competition which doesn't have billions of dollars to push back.
Not sure of the future of Gumtree in Australia, but they also have a large tech company behind them (at least until next year). eBay Classifieds Group
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.
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.
And what about their tracking through a huge chunk of popular websites? Shadow profiles and all kinds of shadey stuff.
Install the uMatrix extension. Blacklist anything from facebook.com and fb.com.
Now their tracking pixels can't see you.
Now their tracking pixels can't see you.
Blocking domains works right now but what if Facebook register a new domain? Or a thousand new domains? Or they proxy traffic through a site owner's domain? What's needed is a way to block Facebook's privacy invasion regardless of the tech they use. That is unlikely to be a problem solved by tech. It needs enough people, including governments, to tell Facebook they're unhappy with Facebook's activity.
As far as the cross-site tracking goes, they'd actually need to get all the other websites to update the facebook JS code they include, and it would only work until the tracking blockers updated their lists again.
I agree that tech is the wrong place to be solving this problem, but it can work in a rather cludgy way.
I agree that tech is the wrong place to be solving this problem, but it can work in a rather cludgy way.
Just in case you weren't aware, uMatrix has been deprecated and will receive no further development, including fixes. It still runs fine now, but it may not in the future.
Thank you! I was not. The GitHub repo has indeed been archived.[1]
Any ideas where to go for similar functionality that will be supported in the future?
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
Any ideas where to go for similar functionality that will be supported in the future?
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
There seem to be several forks, although it doesn't look like there's much consolidation on merging PRs into any specific repo. Hopefully they don't just splinter off and end up fragmented and neglected. :-\
https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/network
https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/network
uBlock Origin in advanced mode is gorhill's suggested replacement. If you have never used uMatrix before most likely uBlock Origin is what you should be using, and can easily accomplish the "globally block facebook domains" either via blocklists or manually via the advanced mode.
This argument is so tiresome. It isn’t a radicle idea that people should be able to engage in basic actives like transportation, commerce, communication, etc. without having to give up their rights to safety, privacy, and other basic standards. “If you don’t want to risk getting poisoned, just don’t shop at that multination store”. How about any store should be regulated to provide a minimum level of safety in the things they sell. How about any communication platform be regulated to provide a minimum level of privacy and data protection for private user information.
The link mentions adversarial interoperability for ad blockers, which made me really remember how bad the ad landscape used to be. Crazy amounts of popups, ads that crashed your browser, the explorer shell, or the whole computer, seemingly recursive popups that you had to force-quit the browser to get out of... Sure, I still use an ad blocker, but it seems like have been forced to realize that if they want any of the advertising pie, they need to meet a minimal standard of playing nice with the user.
You can't really compete with FAANG. They are too big. They just destroy or buy all competitors. Especially Facebook.
With both Google and Facebook, mandatory licensing of their advertising inventory (within reason) would help competitors grow. Advertisers want to buy on Facebook/Google because they are the only two ad platforms with quality and scale. Companies like Pinterest/Twitter/Snapchat don't have the enough scale to be interesting to most advertisers. Programatic marketplaces (Adwords, etc.) have the scale, but not the quality (too many spammy publishers and lack of identity resolution across the marketplace). If the big two digital ad platforms were required to license their premium inventory, other companies could invest in their products and gain substantial incremental revenues as consumers started using them. With current business practice, you need to reach massive scale before you can even think about monetizing at reasonable rate ($30+ CPM).
That's why we have antitrust laws--and why, on unfortunately rare occasions, we enforce them.
Let's wait a few years. Bloat will kill these companies. It's inevitable.
I agree, and as a counter argument to most of the below threads, its worth noting that the Social Graph is likely to be consider a public good at some point in the future.
These are not the creations of Facebook or Google, any more than Anemometer (1) manufacturers should own the shipping forecast.
(1) The spinney half-ball things that measure wind speed.
These are not the creations of Facebook or Google, any more than Anemometer (1) manufacturers should own the shipping forecast.
(1) The spinney half-ball things that measure wind speed.
Yes, can’t we have an email equivalent of social graphs and interaction that can be driven by open standards?
I am sure people have thought about this.
All the Government needs to do is to enforce compliance to such standards.
I am sure people have thought about this.
All the Government needs to do is to enforce compliance to such standards.
I don't believe it works in practice. I remember CableCARDs and Tivo, what a disaster that was. Comcast came to my house 3 times and never got the CableCARD to work right, so I gave up and just took their DVR. I imagine an interoperable API would have all sorts of problems, bugs, timeouts, etc. and the company would just claim they are doing what the law requires.
You know, the principle is hard to justify in some ways, but thinking back, some of the fastest and best innovation I've seen came about when the people making interoperable software were ahead of the companies trying to shut it down.
Imagine congress understanding a word you just said.
You get that congress isn't a single actor and that there are people in congress who do, right?
the social graph isn't all that valuable to outsiders. anyone determined enough can scrape it without permission anyway. no one else can do much with it except maybe intelligence agencies which were already voluntarily given root access a long time ago.
the main economic value of it is to serve ads on Facebook dot com. that's it. that's how they make 100% of their earnings.
the main economic value of it is to serve ads on Facebook dot com. that's it. that's how they make 100% of their earnings.
Separating companies, while certainly a more blunt instrument, is far more broadly applicable when it comes to anti-trust enforcement than it is to come up with a specific policy proposal on a per-company basis. The latter would require an act of Congress each time a company went too far, and Congress moves too slowly, is too divided, and doesn't have the bandwidth to individually address every anti-trust situation with a new law.
I doubt most lawmakers dealing with this know what Internet is, let alone API.
Good Idea ... It solves the critical problem of turning people into products.
[deleted]
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 competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default.
But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets, easy to split up without huge adverse effects, and FB purchasing them was clearly done to neuter potential competitive threats.
So if any suit is going to succeed, this feels like it would be the one.
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 competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default.
But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets, easy to split up without huge adverse effects, and FB purchasing them was clearly done to neuter potential competitive threats.
So if any suit is going to succeed, this feels like it would be the one.
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 basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold). 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. Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand.
In contrast, Amazon not only sells alongside its third-party sellers, it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that.
The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
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 basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold). 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. Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand.
In contrast, Amazon not only sells alongside its third-party sellers, it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that.
The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
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 they will start buying less of yours.
Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that.
Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves.
The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
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.
Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that.
Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves.
The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
None of what you wrote is really relevant to the point the parent was making. They were highlighting the upfront risk of paying for the inventory itself. Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. The vast, vast majority of other retailers do. Consignment arrangements are the exception, not the rule.
Slotting fees, like buying ads on Amazon, have absolutely nothing to do with inventory costs.
>Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
There's exceptions to everything and the parent explicitly mentioned that.
Slotting fees, like buying ads on Amazon, have absolutely nothing to do with inventory costs.
>Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
There's exceptions to everything and the parent explicitly mentioned that.
> Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever.
This is a bit extreme. “Shipped and sold by Amazon” is indeed a large part of their online retail and many people try to buy only directly from Amazon.
This is a bit extreme. “Shipped and sold by Amazon” is indeed a large part of their online retail and many people try to buy only directly from Amazon.
We seem to have come full circle back to the original point.
Amazon chooses which products to stock and sell direct based on the risk/reward ratio of each individual product. They determine that ratio by analyzing their 3rd party merchants data.
See the problem? Amazon can eliminate/minimize their own risk based on data from their supposed "partners".
Amazon chooses which products to stock and sell direct based on the risk/reward ratio of each individual product. They determine that ratio by analyzing their 3rd party merchants data.
See the problem? Amazon can eliminate/minimize their own risk based on data from their supposed "partners".
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 customers would generally not buy name brand because it's too expensive, and the brands don't won't lower-priced products to "sully" the image of the brand. Hence, they sell white label (aka store brand) products to retail stores that are generally lower quality and thus cheaper.
Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves.
Yes, some do. For new products that they wouldn't otherwise stock on the shelves, because it's in lieu of the anticipated lost revenue from saleable products that would otherwise have gone on the shelves. Note that slotting fees are used alongside consignment arrangements.
Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
Yes, but they've still paid for those products in the first place (in the legal/accounting sense). Refunds come in the form of discounts or credits on future invoices.
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 customers would generally not buy name brand because it's too expensive, and the brands don't won't lower-priced products to "sully" the image of the brand. Hence, they sell white label (aka store brand) products to retail stores that are generally lower quality and thus cheaper.
Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves.
Yes, some do. For new products that they wouldn't otherwise stock on the shelves, because it's in lieu of the anticipated lost revenue from saleable products that would otherwise have gone on the shelves. Note that slotting fees are used alongside consignment arrangements.
Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
Yes, but they've still paid for those products in the first place (in the legal/accounting sense). Refunds come in the form of discounts or credits on future invoices.
And you frankly have no clue.
Let me clue you in on a few facts.
Retail stores are not paying upfront. Name a single major retailer that does this. I've yet to hear of a single one doing this.
Amazon is a bookstore. Go to any other bookstore or even distributor, and ask how quickly folks get paid who sell into their market. These folks drag the absolute HELL out of payment.
And yes, the local bookstore can return the books. They are generally not taking inventory risk.
Same thing with a grocery store. Want to get on shelf? Pay a fee? Want to sell in store? Until you prove sales volume so risk is gone, you will need to be willing to accept product returns and pay fee to cover whatever you replaced.
Want data on how your product sold at store level / by day / time etc? Be prepared to PAY for that. BTW - amazon merchants get most of this for free.
The time to pay for a product that sells in a retail store and amazon is different, and much WORSE for the retail store. You can get next day payout availability for FBA from amazon. If you sell a product through a distributor into retail - if you think you are going to get next day payment - dream on.
Let me clue you in on a few facts.
Retail stores are not paying upfront. Name a single major retailer that does this. I've yet to hear of a single one doing this.
Amazon is a bookstore. Go to any other bookstore or even distributor, and ask how quickly folks get paid who sell into their market. These folks drag the absolute HELL out of payment.
And yes, the local bookstore can return the books. They are generally not taking inventory risk.
Same thing with a grocery store. Want to get on shelf? Pay a fee? Want to sell in store? Until you prove sales volume so risk is gone, you will need to be willing to accept product returns and pay fee to cover whatever you replaced.
Want data on how your product sold at store level / by day / time etc? Be prepared to PAY for that. BTW - amazon merchants get most of this for free.
The time to pay for a product that sells in a retail store and amazon is different, and much WORSE for the retail store. You can get next day payout availability for FBA from amazon. If you sell a product through a distributor into retail - if you think you are going to get next day payment - dream on.
Retail stores are not paying upfront. Name a single major retailer that does this. I've yet to hear of a single one doing this.
I don't claim that the companies "pay upfront" because that's not how B2B invoicing works. Companies pay invoices on a net-terms basis (ranging between 30 and 180 days after the underlying good or service is provided or received). But they have signed the legal contract agreeing to pay before they received the inventory (and indeed before the inventory was even queued for delivery), and so legally, they are required to pay.
For financial and tax purposes, they are treated as having paid (because the expense has accrued) even if, economically, they have not actually forked over the money.
And yes, the local bookstore can return the books. They are generally not taking inventory risk
This is not true. The local bookstore has taken on inventory risk. B&N takes on inventory risk. They can, however, ask the publisher for discounts or credits for unsold books, and publishers generally give those out like candy.
Same thing with a grocery store. Want to get on shelf? Pay a fee? Want to sell in store? Until you prove sales volume so risk is gone, you will need to be willing to accept product returns and pay fee to cover whatever you replaced.
Yes, and I've never claimed otherwise. If you want to replace items on the shelf that are selling, you need to pay the store for the risk of your replacement product not selling. But once you have established that record of sales, they buy future inventory. Note that for most retail stores we are talking about here (grocery, gas stations, Target, Walmart, etc.), these trials last a day or two; maybe even a week for slower-selling product types; trials may last longer for specialty stores.
I don't claim that the companies "pay upfront" because that's not how B2B invoicing works. Companies pay invoices on a net-terms basis (ranging between 30 and 180 days after the underlying good or service is provided or received). But they have signed the legal contract agreeing to pay before they received the inventory (and indeed before the inventory was even queued for delivery), and so legally, they are required to pay.
For financial and tax purposes, they are treated as having paid (because the expense has accrued) even if, economically, they have not actually forked over the money.
And yes, the local bookstore can return the books. They are generally not taking inventory risk
This is not true. The local bookstore has taken on inventory risk. B&N takes on inventory risk. They can, however, ask the publisher for discounts or credits for unsold books, and publishers generally give those out like candy.
Same thing with a grocery store. Want to get on shelf? Pay a fee? Want to sell in store? Until you prove sales volume so risk is gone, you will need to be willing to accept product returns and pay fee to cover whatever you replaced.
Yes, and I've never claimed otherwise. If you want to replace items on the shelf that are selling, you need to pay the store for the risk of your replacement product not selling. But once you have established that record of sales, they buy future inventory. Note that for most retail stores we are talking about here (grocery, gas stations, Target, Walmart, etc.), these trials last a day or two; maybe even a week for slower-selling product types; trials may last longer for specialty stores.
“30 and 180 days after the underlying good or service is provided or received”
+ “But once you have established that record of sales, they buy future inventory.”
Means very different for products with a limited shelf life. The cost to “replace items that are selling” doesn’t just cover the risk, it also covers the items actively sitting on the shelves. A store is only buying new items after the old items have sold, so that continues indefinitely. A store is thus better off of if an item stops selling in 1 year than 1 day, as the replacement item is also subsidized.
Means very different for products with a limited shelf life. The cost to “replace items that are selling” doesn’t just cover the risk, it also covers the items actively sitting on the shelves. A store is only buying new items after the old items have sold, so that continues indefinitely. A store is thus better off of if an item stops selling in 1 year than 1 day, as the replacement item is also subsidized.
You can safely leave off the leading paragraph about how other people in the thread are not smart and you're in the right—that's the default motivational assumption that surrounds making comments online
Yeah, I removed that. It was too snarky and detracting from my main point.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
So many inaccuracies in this.
> it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products.
Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it.
> Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product;
Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that.
> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
> it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products.
Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it.
> Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product;
Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that.
> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it.
Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers.
Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that.
I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER.
I repeat, the store brand is just a different SKU offered under the name brand's white label product line. For example, Home Depot's RIGID tool like is made by the same company that makes Milwaukee and Ryobi. Those store brand cereals are made by General Mills. The store brand milk comes from the same regional dairies as the local regional name brand. Every single one of Costco's Kirkland signature products is made for them by a supplier that makes their own name brand products.
Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers.
Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that.
I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER.
I repeat, the store brand is just a different SKU offered under the name brand's white label product line. For example, Home Depot's RIGID tool like is made by the same company that makes Milwaukee and Ryobi. Those store brand cereals are made by General Mills. The store brand milk comes from the same regional dairies as the local regional name brand. Every single one of Costco's Kirkland signature products is made for them by a supplier that makes their own name brand products.
Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
> I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER.
But we are asking how is Amazon different? All of their store brands share manufacturers with name brands. They haven’t developed their own textile mills and coffee roasters...
But we are asking how is Amazon different? All of their store brands share manufacturers with name brands. They haven’t developed their own textile mills and coffee roasters...
> No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
One can always make the argument then, that just use Shopify and don't come to Amazon. Amazon can even make the case for Google and FB having sufficiently big audience size for customer acquisition.
Unlike an app which needs to go through AppStore to end up on an iPhone, a product being sold on Amazon doesn't need to go through them for customers to purchase it.
> Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers.
So does Amazon, but both don't limit themselves to just this use case.
One can always make the argument then, that just use Shopify and don't come to Amazon. Amazon can even make the case for Google and FB having sufficiently big audience size for customer acquisition.
Unlike an app which needs to go through AppStore to end up on an iPhone, a product being sold on Amazon doesn't need to go through them for customers to purchase it.
> Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers.
So does Amazon, but both don't limit themselves to just this use case.
i don't see what's hard to understand, get access to your competitors data, use that data to cherry pick and create competing products on your own platform with an inherent home field advantage. boom competition dead.
I get that completely and it is scary, what I don't get is the argument that somehow physical retailers are above this. There is nothing new in what Amazon is doing, retailers have been playing by this book for long. Whatever regulation is being asked for Amazon, should have been asked for other retail behemoths as well way before.
> 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.
Supermarket economics are more complex. Brands have to pay to go on promotion, and they have to pay to appear in the catalogue. I've heard placement fees for mailbox catalogue placements can be a significant bulk of revenue for some companies.
My wife recently started in a new company with retail products and was appalled at what goes on, but it's normal. The supermarket wants to promote your product? Pay up. Per product. They choose which, not you. If you don't, there's a good chance your shelf space gets replaced by a competitor next time it's under review. If you do, you'll often lose money while it's on sale. It's a very predatory arrangement enabled by the duopoly here in AU.
Supermarket economics are more complex. Brands have to pay to go on promotion, and they have to pay to appear in the catalogue. I've heard placement fees for mailbox catalogue placements can be a significant bulk of revenue for some companies.
My wife recently started in a new company with retail products and was appalled at what goes on, but it's normal. The supermarket wants to promote your product? Pay up. Per product. They choose which, not you. If you don't, there's a good chance your shelf space gets replaced by a competitor next time it's under review. If you do, you'll often lose money while it's on sale. It's a very predatory arrangement enabled by the duopoly here in AU.
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?
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?
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, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers. Supermarkets don’t just pay for product as a textbook marketplace
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. Supermarkets don’t just pay for product as a textbook marketplace
> 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...
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...
Supermarkets do not pay for product as you describe. Manufacturers and/or distributors pay the supermarkets slotting fees to get their products on the shelves. Additionally, slotting fees are higher for ideal shelf location, and in some cases proximity to competitor products. For example, the bottom shelves are undesirable. And then you have end caps which are highly desirable.
Slotting fees are real, but of course supermarkets pay for the product. How else would the manufacturer be paid? The fee is basically paying for the right to shelf space, but the supermarket still buys the product to fill the shelves. Also, not all supermarkets, including not all large chains, have such fees.
Sure. I didn't say anything differently. The parent though was mistaken to believe supermarkets do not have similar structures to Amazon in terms of product placement/promotion. In other words, Apple pays Amazon in some form in order to have Amazon prioritize Apple products based upon user search. Supermarkets are paid by Starkist to get Starkist tuna on the eye-level shelf as opposed to the first shelf from the floor. Starkist and Apple still get paid for products sold, otherwise neither company could exist.
They're paid when the product clears.
Many big chains like Walmart and Best Buy don't own a significant portion of inventory on shelves or in warehouses. The manufacturers own the inventory up until the products are paid for by the customer.
Many big chains like Walmart and Best Buy don't own a significant portion of inventory on shelves or in warehouses. The manufacturers own the inventory up until the products are paid for by the customer.
This is simply false. Chains like Walmart and Best Buy own their inventory (i.e., they hold legal title).
They simply might not have forked over the cash yet, which is very different--for a variety of reasons, the actual transfer of cash can take place weeks or even months later. (This is how invoicing works with most companies. If you are an independent contract, you know exactly how this works.)
Very few products in retail are sold on a consignment basis (meaning, when the product sells). Generally, only new products or slow-selling big-ticket items (like refrigerators) get sold on consignment (or similar) arrangements.
They simply might not have forked over the cash yet, which is very different--for a variety of reasons, the actual transfer of cash can take place weeks or even months later. (This is how invoicing works with most companies. If you are an independent contract, you know exactly how this works.)
Very few products in retail are sold on a consignment basis (meaning, when the product sells). Generally, only new products or slow-selling big-ticket items (like refrigerators) get sold on consignment (or similar) arrangements.
Legal title isn’t the end-all depending on how the entire contract is structured. e.g. A home owner may hold legal title to a home, but the mortgage is a side contract that may show that the bank may hold more than half of the entire home value.
Legal title is just one of many arbitrary constructs that get applied, typically in a way that’s most advantageous to the more powerful party in the relationship.
Forking or not forking over cash can be a key component of who really holds the business risk (rather than just legal title).
Legal title is just one of many arbitrary constructs that get applied, typically in a way that’s most advantageous to the more powerful party in the relationship.
Forking or not forking over cash can be a key component of who really holds the business risk (rather than just legal title).
> 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.
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.
> Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand.
Whoa, what? Total news to me. Source? Or do you work in this sector? This is really interesting.
Whoa, what? Total news to me. Source? Or do you work in this sector? This is really interesting.
This kind if rebadging has been happening in many industries for a very long time. I bumped into this first, way back in the heyday of CD burners, deep diving on all the info and comparisons I could find. The high end Sony and some bargain brand were identical units apart from the case and badge. A real aha moment in my life.
With cars, there are often just superficial differences to create a much larger perceived value difference between an Audi or VW or a Lexus or Toyota (on some models).
I find this topic quite fascinating, as it relates to human psychology.
With cars, there are often just superficial differences to create a much larger perceived value difference between an Audi or VW or a Lexus or Toyota (on some models).
I find this topic quite fascinating, as it relates to human psychology.
It's been an open secret for decades.
There are a lot of sources online, see for exapmle https://hip2save.com/tips/store-brands-made-by-name-brands/.
White labeling is frequently more profitable than selling a name brand product because you don't have to spend money on marketing, but due to the different level of quality in most store brand products, the suppliers generally prefer to leave their brand off the package and put only the legal minimum identifying info require. As a result, unless you actually work for one of the brands involved (the store or the supplier) it's extremely hard to know who the supplier is. But every store brand product you buy in a major U.S. retail chain is made by a manufacturer of a name brand product in the same space.
(On a similar note, most U.S. "craft" whiskey is made by the same distillery. White labeling for the win. https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/different-craft-whiskey-mgp-d...)
There are a lot of sources online, see for exapmle https://hip2save.com/tips/store-brands-made-by-name-brands/.
White labeling is frequently more profitable than selling a name brand product because you don't have to spend money on marketing, but due to the different level of quality in most store brand products, the suppliers generally prefer to leave their brand off the package and put only the legal minimum identifying info require. As a result, unless you actually work for one of the brands involved (the store or the supplier) it's extremely hard to know who the supplier is. But every store brand product you buy in a major U.S. retail chain is made by a manufacturer of a name brand product in the same space.
(On a similar note, most U.S. "craft" whiskey is made by the same distillery. White labeling for the win. https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/different-craft-whiskey-mgp-d...)
They might make it, but it’s generally a different, cheaper, product. You can easily see this with food - the ingredients and nutrition information will usually be different.
> it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products
Why do you think physical retailers are not doing the same thing?
Why do you think physical retailers are not doing the same thing?
Not taking a stance on the main topic, but this isn’t entirely accurate. I worked at gas stations and managed a grocery store during my early days. It depended on the product. With Frito Lay and Pepsi products, they’d often times put stuff on shelves and we’d only pay for what we sold. Similarly, for certain breads and packaged pastries and other items, anything that didn’t sell by the date on the package would get credited to the store. If the item didn’t sell, it’s not that we always just absorbed the cost.
None of what you said conflicts with how the transactions are actually characterized for legal, tax, and financial purposes.
Suppliers often credit stores for unsold inventory if they want to maintain a relationship with the store. As most B2B transactions are paid via invoices on a net-terms basis, this may mean discounts on future orders or credits against outstanding invoices. But you're store already acquired those products.
Suppliers often credit stores for unsold inventory if they want to maintain a relationship with the store. As most B2B transactions are paid via invoices on a net-terms basis, this may mean discounts on future orders or credits against outstanding invoices. But you're store already acquired those products.
As I learned at my first company when we were sued for (bogus) anti trust reasons -- You do not need to actually be a monopoly to run afoul of anti trust laws. You only need the speak and act with the intent to do so. Using your market share to harm your competitors without a clear benefit to customers is enough to get you even if there are other large companies in the space.
I have my doubts, simply because the markets would be significantly disrupted if the government can retroactively “unapprove” a merger over a decade (or longer) after the fact - AFTER the government previously approved it.
You’re better off trying to right the wrongs through litigation that sets a better market environment.
You’re better off trying to right the wrongs through litigation that sets a better market environment.
It's not any different than splitting a company up into parts. Historically, that hasn't disrupted the markets as much as it's made sharedholders more money ... because the multiple, smaller entities are more valuable than the whole.
The situation reminds me of when Google bought Motorola[0], and then the Android phone manufacturers pushed for them to sell it again. Which eventually happened. Main difference here would be that it's the government pushing now, instead of (indirect?) competitors (which also happen to be customers).
[0] Good old times, I still have a Moto G3 from back then that works like a charm, except it can't "speak" to the 4G technology that got deployed in the country where I live.
[0] Good old times, I still have a Moto G3 from back then that works like a charm, except it can't "speak" to the 4G technology that got deployed in the country where I live.
Maybe, but I wonder if the difference in hardware vs. software makes the FB situation a tad more complicated.
Leadership made the push a few years back when Chris Cox left to merge the code bases as much as possible. Do you trust the government to know enough to dictate how that should be undone? You can't, like, just run a "git rebase" to undo years of merging by 10000's of engineers.
Then again, maybe that is just crazy enough to work???
Leadership made the push a few years back when Chris Cox left to merge the code bases as much as possible. Do you trust the government to know enough to dictate how that should be undone? You can't, like, just run a "git rebase" to undo years of merging by 10000's of engineers.
Then again, maybe that is just crazy enough to work???
It's not like we haven't broken up companies in the past. It did not cause capitalism to collapse.
> 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 competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default.
But these aren't the complaints being bade, at least not the ones in the lawsuits we know of so far. The Google lawsuit, for example, targets its practice of paying companies to make it the default search engine in order to maintain it's monopoly on search. It isn't seeking Google divest from its ad business.
That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business.
But these aren't the complaints being bade, at least not the ones in the lawsuits we know of so far. The Google lawsuit, for example, targets its practice of paying companies to make it the default search engine in order to maintain it's monopoly on search. It isn't seeking Google divest from its ad business.
That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business.
> That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business.
I’m not aware of a business model that would keep a search company in business if they didn’t offer ads to go with it. On top of that, offering the ability to companies to target their ads to highly relevant consumers is incredibly valuable to our economy.
I’m not aware of a business model that would keep a search company in business if they didn’t offer ads to go with it. On top of that, offering the ability to companies to target their ads to highly relevant consumers is incredibly valuable to our economy.
They can still sell their inventory e.g. impressions and clicks, but they wouldn't run the DSP/SSP (just like other ad supported publishers).
In other words, it would mandate the existence of a layer of middlemen between the search engine and ad buyers.
> But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets
What is the "market"? Things people do on their phones? What are they precisely monopolizing?
What is the "market"? Things people do on their phones? What are they precisely monopolizing?
That really doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to answer. E.g. just look at Facebook: name the #2 broadly "generic" social network. Is there really any other alternative here, at all? It really was a winner take all effect here, evidenced by the fact that all their former competitors are basically dead. Same thing with Instagram - anyone remember Hipstamatic?
Twitter and Snapchat are the obvious answers here about “competitor”.
And WhatsApp, of course, the competitors are iMessage, GChat, and MMS/RCS that’s already built right into every phone.
And WhatsApp, of course, the competitors are iMessage, GChat, and MMS/RCS that’s already built right into every phone.
What is a social network? What makes Facebook different from Twitter, Reddit, HackerNews, or Linkedin?
Basically if you define social network as something exactly like Facebook then, of course, that's what it is and everything else is excluded.
Basically if you define social network as something exactly like Facebook then, of course, that's what it is and everything else is excluded.
[deleted]
> But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets
A lot of companies are like that, one could think that it's "easy" to split up Google Maps from Gmail and Google Calendar, or Office 360 from Azure and Windows, or Salesforce and Slack and ...
A lot of companies are like that, one could think that it's "easy" to split up Google Maps from Gmail and Google Calendar, or Office 360 from Azure and Windows, or Salesforce and Slack and ...
FB IG and Whatsap are not complementary orthogonal or products in the same way Maps/Search or 360 and azure are.
Amazon can be split on other dimensions, e.g. AWS as a separate company, delivery as a separate company.
How does cleaving companies apart into their separate unrelated businesses address monopoly practices or anti-trust issues? If Amazon has a monopoly on delivery, the parted-out delivery company will still have a monopoly on delivery. If AWS has a monopoly on cloud computing, making AWS independent changes nothing. AWS is not going to begin competing with Amazon's last-mile delivery business if the two are split off into separate companies.
If nothing else, it could prevent Amazon abusing its monopoly, by leveraging its monopoly in one area to slap competition around in other areas.
Amazon uses its cloud revenue to significantly undercut competitor prices, then raise prices again after they go out of business.
Splitting these two will cause Amazon Products to be actually profitable.
The platform also uses its position to push their products, products they made after gathering data of items sold on their platform.
At the very least, Amazon shouldn't compete with their own customers (i.e. Sellers)
Splitting these two will cause Amazon Products to be actually profitable.
The platform also uses its position to push their products, products they made after gathering data of items sold on their platform.
At the very least, Amazon shouldn't compete with their own customers (i.e. Sellers)
Because internet search engine, video sharing platform, streaming entertainment content division, or a self driving car division of other competitors are clearly products belonging together.
Unfortunately there's literally thousands of social networking sites, chat apps and photo sharing apps out there, and many of them have millions of downloads which keeps Facebook on their toes. Facebook can easily win this based off of that technicality.
That's only a technicality in internet discussions. Actual antitrust law in the US does not have a binary definition of "monopoly" that lets large companies off the hook.
If it doesn't succeed, expect more of the same from FAANG. Until we have FANG, then FAN, then FA, then just F.
A high profile acquisition or merger within FAANG is extremely unlikely. These companies are already treading a careful line with antitrust and a merger would be unbelievably risky. There is also basically no point on either side; these companies are doing just fine. If anything the competition is probably good for them.
Netflix is probably the highest risk of being acquired by someone like Apple, or more likely traditional media owner like Disney or Comcast.
Netflix is probably the highest risk of being acquired by someone like Apple, or more likely traditional media owner like Disney or Comcast.
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.
I agree with the above. I’ll also add that apple and Amazon are two of the most loved American brands. I think Amazon has a higher trust from Americans compared to almost every institution except the US military
Doesn’t seem like a good political move to go after those companies in my opinion. By comparison, Facebook is loathed by both parties for different reasons.
Disclaimer, I used to work at Amazon.
Doesn’t seem like a good political move to go after those companies in my opinion. By comparison, Facebook is loathed by both parties for different reasons.
Disclaimer, I used to work at Amazon.
Yeah, but I worry about the impact of this for rule of law generally, because those acquisitions were approved by the FTC. If something material changed or was omitted, I guess you could make the case for taking Facebook to court but if the issue is just the magnitude of the acquisition or the nature of the companies' business it seems like asking for a do-over.
> Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items.
The huge difference here is that when you go into Walmart you don't announce to the company what you want to buy.
The huge difference here is that when you go into Walmart you don't announce to the company what you want to buy.
Is it really that big of a difference? You still have to go to the one section of walmart where they stock the cheese or car batteries or whatever. Walmart can set up their own shelves to emphasize their own brands if they want.
If you pay with a credit card at walmart they can collect the same data about your purchase history as amazon would as well.
If you pay with a credit card at walmart they can collect the same data about your purchase history as amazon would as well.
Walmart paid for the products on their shelves. Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon.
The difference, in case it's not clear: Walmart is the manufacturers' primary customer, so it's irrelevant from their point of view what products Walmart chooses to sell in its stores.
The third-party sellers are the manufacturer's customers. The manufacturers still get paid either way. But we're not concerned about the manufacturers; the antitrust issue is with the third party sellers. Since Amazon uses their data to come up with competing products that are sold in the same marketplace, it matters a great deal that Amazon competes with them, and how.
The difference, in case it's not clear: Walmart is the manufacturers' primary customer, so it's irrelevant from their point of view what products Walmart chooses to sell in its stores.
The third-party sellers are the manufacturer's customers. The manufacturers still get paid either way. But we're not concerned about the manufacturers; the antitrust issue is with the third party sellers. Since Amazon uses their data to come up with competing products that are sold in the same marketplace, it matters a great deal that Amazon competes with them, and how.
Walmart pays for some products on their shelves. Companies pay for product placement: Sometimes, it is a mix - deeply reduced prices for a holiday display, for example. Soft drinks are often serviced by the local distributor, and they pay only for what is sold: If wal-mart is anything like the pharmacy I worked at, magazines and greeting cards are similar (only pay for what is sold, credited for the rest, and a rep probably takes care of stocking things).
Walmart uses their data to figure out which Walmart brand products they are going to sell. Instead of using search terms, they use product placement, making sure to place their brand near the product it is imitating. Dandruff shampoo next to name brand dandruff shampoo: Mac 'n' cheese next to mac 'n' cheese.
In fact, it is quite amazing how much brick-and-mortar stores can figure out about people simply by analyzing receipts - in some cases, figuring out folks were pregnant before they knew. [1]
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
Walmart uses their data to figure out which Walmart brand products they are going to sell. Instead of using search terms, they use product placement, making sure to place their brand near the product it is imitating. Dandruff shampoo next to name brand dandruff shampoo: Mac 'n' cheese next to mac 'n' cheese.
In fact, it is quite amazing how much brick-and-mortar stores can figure out about people simply by analyzing receipts - in some cases, figuring out folks were pregnant before they knew. [1]
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
No, Walmart pays for nearly all the products on their shelves, except for new products which might be sold on a consignment basis.
Companies paying for product placement does not change the simple truth that Walmart has paid for the product (in the legal and financial sense, even if they haven't actually forked over the cash in the actual/economic sense), and the supplier is paying for product placement through discounts or other non-cash consideration.
If wal-mart is anything like the pharmacy I worked at, magazines and greeting cards are similar (only pay for what is sold, credited for the rest, and a rep probably takes care of stocking things).
No, Walmart and Target are not like the pharmacy you worked for. Target and RiteAid were former clients, I know exactly how they paid for their inventory.
Moreover, the market for books, magazines, newspapers, and other printed material is different from other products. With print material, publishers provide discounts or credits for unsold copies against newer books/issues because the value of the unsold periodicals rapidly drops to zero after the period passes, and book stores that get burned with unsaleable books generally refuse to stock new books from that publisher if they are not provided incentives (by the publisher) to do so. Note that publishers will usually not credit book stores for best sellers like Harry Potter, etc., because the threat to not carry future best sellers is more likely to backfire on the bookstore than it is on the publisher.
Companies paying for product placement does not change the simple truth that Walmart has paid for the product (in the legal and financial sense, even if they haven't actually forked over the cash in the actual/economic sense), and the supplier is paying for product placement through discounts or other non-cash consideration.
If wal-mart is anything like the pharmacy I worked at, magazines and greeting cards are similar (only pay for what is sold, credited for the rest, and a rep probably takes care of stocking things).
No, Walmart and Target are not like the pharmacy you worked for. Target and RiteAid were former clients, I know exactly how they paid for their inventory.
Moreover, the market for books, magazines, newspapers, and other printed material is different from other products. With print material, publishers provide discounts or credits for unsold copies against newer books/issues because the value of the unsold periodicals rapidly drops to zero after the period passes, and book stores that get burned with unsaleable books generally refuse to stock new books from that publisher if they are not provided incentives (by the publisher) to do so. Note that publishers will usually not credit book stores for best sellers like Harry Potter, etc., because the threat to not carry future best sellers is more likely to backfire on the bookstore than it is on the publisher.
I'm so very, very sick of the target pregnancy story. Like, we have absolutely no idea how many people the model thought were pregnant, vs the number that actually were.
Based on my knowledge of market-basket analysis, this might work, but we really don't know anything except a just-so story about target and someone's daughter.
This is really, really not a good example of analysing receipts leading to better things.
Based on my knowledge of market-basket analysis, this might work, but we really don't know anything except a just-so story about target and someone's daughter.
This is really, really not a good example of analysing receipts leading to better things.
> Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon.
“Sold and shipped by Amazon.com” means that Amazon actually bought that product and is storing it at their warehouse.
“Sold and shipped by Amazon.com” means that Amazon actually bought that product and is storing it at their warehouse.
More than half of the products sold on Amazon are not sold by Amazon.com. (
https://www.marketplacepulse.com/articles/amazons-retail-bus...)
And a portion of the products that can be purchased from "Amazon.com" (the seller) are JIT orders that Amazon places with the supplier. This is why some products on Amazon are perpetually never "in stock" until a future date on the store listing page; Amazon has made the decision based on sales data to only order those products on demand. In such cases, the supplier will usually ship to Amazon for transshipment to the customer, but depending on the cost of logistics, Amazon may have them ship directly to the customer.
And a portion of the products that can be purchased from "Amazon.com" (the seller) are JIT orders that Amazon places with the supplier. This is why some products on Amazon are perpetually never "in stock" until a future date on the store listing page; Amazon has made the decision based on sales data to only order those products on demand. In such cases, the supplier will usually ship to Amazon for transshipment to the customer, but depending on the cost of logistics, Amazon may have them ship directly to the customer.
The parent said "most of the products" and that is 100% correct.
I don't think this distinction actually justifies treating Amazon in a dramatically different way than Walmart. I agree that Amazon and Walmart have different strategies for managing inventory, in house branding and product placement. Walmart also operates an in house clone of Amazon in the form of their online store.
Why exactly is Amazon so much worse?
Why exactly is Amazon so much worse?
Walmart.com has the same problems as Amazon's Marketplace because they simply copied a lot of Amazon's worst practices.
But Amazon's Marketplace is 100x the size of Walmart.com. Generally, with antitrust you start with the biggest fish and work your way down as needed.
(Walmart Retail, as discussed elsewhere, isn't comparable to Amazon.com for many reasons.)
But Amazon's Marketplace is 100x the size of Walmart.com. Generally, with antitrust you start with the biggest fish and work your way down as needed.
(Walmart Retail, as discussed elsewhere, isn't comparable to Amazon.com for many reasons.)
The difference might not be as large as you think: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...
When Facebook first went public, an older relative asked me if he should invest in Facebook. My only insight was being an internet user at the time and I said no, there was no reason that Facebook wouldn’t be another MySpace. Facebook's only value was their users and users were historically very finicky and moved around platforms at will. I argued that Facebook would make no money and wouldn’t be around in a couple of years. This obviously turned out wildly wrong but I always thought the user moat was always an issue and Facebook’s downfall would be related to it. I guess what this lawsuit says is that they essentially just bought their way out of people platform jumping.
Bought all the platforms people were going to jump to.
The "Onvao Protect" traffic snooping VPN to identify what up and coming products people were using was one particularly shady part of this strategy.
The "Onvao Protect" traffic snooping VPN to identify what up and coming products people were using was one particularly shady part of this strategy.
Funnily enough, the co-founder of Onavo (Guy Rosen) is now Facebook's "VP of Integrity," which probably speaks to FB's (lack of) commitment to integrity.
Wow, thank you for the hearty laugh!
You didn't need any traffic snooping to notice millions of Instagram and WhatsApp users. Acquisitions were no brainer for Facebook.
> Acquisitions were no brainer for Facebook.
And hindsight is 20/20.
And hindsight is 20/20.
So true - a lot of people (me included) thought a billion dollars for Instagram seemed insane at the time. But it was possibly the deal of the century.
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.
Yeah, I admit completely that I thought they were massively overpaying for Instagram at the time. I also shared the highest OP's sentiment that I didn't think FB was a good investment for the same reason (that people would migrate from FB to the next thing as fast as folks moved off of MySpace).
I was absolutely and utterly wrong on both accounts. Part of it was definitely wishful thinking, though, as I dislike FB by one or two orders of magnitude more than any other software company.
But yes, I'd say their acquisitions were not completely obvious slam dunks.
They also tried to be Snap, ofc, but my recollection is that Snap refused. Interestingly, folks have probably flip-flopped over the last few years in wondering whether that would've been good or bad for FB.
I was absolutely and utterly wrong on both accounts. Part of it was definitely wishful thinking, though, as I dislike FB by one or two orders of magnitude more than any other software company.
But yes, I'd say their acquisitions were not completely obvious slam dunks.
They also tried to be Snap, ofc, but my recollection is that Snap refused. Interestingly, folks have probably flip-flopped over the last few years in wondering whether that would've been good or bad for FB.
Wow, thanks for providing that link. It really amazes me to see how much we don't even realize we attribute to hindsight.
And it was a no-brainer that it was something that should never have been allowed to happen due to antitrust regulations. T-mobile had to jump through hoops to buy decrepit Sprint but tech companies get to buy whoever and whatever they want that allows them to expand even outside their niche and where their niche is going.
I would posit that you don't use that data to decide whether or not you should buy Instagram. You use that data to decide if you should clone Stories, build an events platform, etc. IOW, it's incredibly valuable to be able to see aggregate user behavior, which is why Amazon's ownership of so much of the commerce experience makes their introduction of competitive "Basics" so interesting/anti-competitive.
I don't have any inside info here, but they could have gotten much more granular information than how many people were using Instagram and WhatsApp.
For instance, daily time spent in using Instagram on a per-user basis, whether that use was associated with a drop in Facebook use, and how patterns in that relationship broke down across demographics.
I didn't think they were no-brainer acquisitions at the time, but they've certainly turned out to be in hindsight. Was Facebook just smart or lucky, or did they have a lot more data than we did to judge those decisions?
For instance, daily time spent in using Instagram on a per-user basis, whether that use was associated with a drop in Facebook use, and how patterns in that relationship broke down across demographics.
I didn't think they were no-brainer acquisitions at the time, but they've certainly turned out to be in hindsight. Was Facebook just smart or lucky, or did they have a lot more data than we did to judge those decisions?
Facebook was smart, it wasn't just a social network, it also was an apps and games platform. Remember Farmville? And also many bands ended up putting their merch and tour dates up on FB because it was just so easy.
Then recently it grew a marketplace to take on craigslist and ebay, and added videos (making it a mini youtube or tiktok).
And let's not forget that FB groups are the go-to place for many hobbies. Into old cars? Or old sewing machines? You won't find an active forum for those things, or if you do, they're 1000x more hostile and trollish than FB's groups.
So my question is, where do you draw the line? Was FB marketplace anticompetitive because it pushed out craigslist?
I guess this whole thing is a fishing expedition to see if the justice department can find a smoking gun email where someone says, like, "Let's be anticompetitive with snapchat" or something...
Then recently it grew a marketplace to take on craigslist and ebay, and added videos (making it a mini youtube or tiktok).
And let's not forget that FB groups are the go-to place for many hobbies. Into old cars? Or old sewing machines? You won't find an active forum for those things, or if you do, they're 1000x more hostile and trollish than FB's groups.
So my question is, where do you draw the line? Was FB marketplace anticompetitive because it pushed out craigslist?
I guess this whole thing is a fishing expedition to see if the justice department can find a smoking gun email where someone says, like, "Let's be anticompetitive with snapchat" or something...
Craigslist has had it coming for a long time.
There are other marketplaces that proved the value of identity and reputation like Mercari and offerup in p2p before fb marketplace launched its own.
I do think FB would stomp or buy other marketplaces, but that there is even a smidgen of opportunity in this space in the US is due to the neglect of buckmaster and newmark.
They went from benevolent dictators to doggedly avoiding any increase in value to users.
This has happened at great detriment to Craigslist users who have been scammed, dealt with well-known but terrible landlords and wasted countless lifetimes due to the shoddy communication features of the site.
I am no fan of Facebook, but have only crocodile tears for Craigslist.
There are other marketplaces that proved the value of identity and reputation like Mercari and offerup in p2p before fb marketplace launched its own.
I do think FB would stomp or buy other marketplaces, but that there is even a smidgen of opportunity in this space in the US is due to the neglect of buckmaster and newmark.
They went from benevolent dictators to doggedly avoiding any increase in value to users.
This has happened at great detriment to Craigslist users who have been scammed, dealt with well-known but terrible landlords and wasted countless lifetimes due to the shoddy communication features of the site.
I am no fan of Facebook, but have only crocodile tears for Craigslist.
Have you ever sold anything on Facebook Marketplace? It's shockingly easy. I'm relatively late to the party. When I used it for the first time earlier this year I felt like it was the wave of the future.
I was curious, so I just took a look. It feels like a flea market or a yard sale. Except there are people selling $1 PS5's and vehicles with 0 miles driven. Lots of noise on there. Plus you have to deal with selling face-to-face in a COVID environment. Honestly, it feels like Craigslist but somehow more scammy.
The location based nature really enhances the convenience. Also the connection with Facebook messenger and the fact that your camera is attached to the phone with the app. Like, I think if you decided to sell something right now and don't know anything about Marketplace then you could have an ad up within 3 minutes. It's sometimes even more convenient than throwing things away.
Don't forget FB Dating!
turns out people didn't want to swipe right on the same website their grandma uses
good lesson in there that some domains just don't mix
good lesson in there that some domains just don't mix
And don't FB have Jobs too? Their take on LinkedIN (and Glassdoor, etc) from 2017. I believe that didn't work out either, but I'm not sure, I see job posts floating in FB from time to time. Maybe another example of mixed domains that don't mix well, but I could be wrong.
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.
Instagram is the current hot thing, and is keeping Facebook The Company on the growth trajectory, but it too will suffer the same problem eventually.
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.
My prediction: if the US government does nothing, Facebook the company will slowly peak and then start shrinking over the next 5-10 years and the problem will start solving itself.
Their data moat becomes infinitely less valuable if the graph of users and engagement is a downward slope instead of an upward one.
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.
Instagram is the current hot thing, and is keeping Facebook The Company on the growth trajectory, but it too will suffer the same problem eventually.
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.
My prediction: if the US government does nothing, Facebook the company will slowly peak and then start shrinking over the next 5-10 years and the problem will start solving itself.
Their data moat becomes infinitely less valuable if the graph of users and engagement is a downward slope instead of an upward one.
> 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 be broken up into three companies to fix it all.
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 be broken up into three companies to fix it all.
How would breaking up Facebook into three companies fix this though? Suppose Instagram is a separate company and a new competitor starts getting popular. Why wouldn’t Instagram still just copy the competitor’s features?
It’s hard to compete with Instagram because everyone is already on Instagram, not because everyone is also on Facebook. (A lot of IG users don’t use FB much, and vice versa.) A freestanding Instagram could still easily copy and crush competitors.
It’s hard to compete with Instagram because everyone is already on Instagram, not because everyone is also on Facebook. (A lot of IG users don’t use FB much, and vice versa.) A freestanding Instagram could still easily copy and crush competitors.
Because if FB were split in three it would signal a definitive shift towards antitrust regulators actively applying the law. In that reality, all move-the-needle mergers would be subject to antitrust regulations that should have (but weren't really) applied to FB's previous acquisitions thus constraining IG's freedom to copy and crush.
I think the only real failure of anti-trust regulation was in the EU. They definitely should not have allowed the Whatsapp acquisition to go ahead.
I'm not sure on what grounds the US regulators would have blocked the Whatsapp acquisition, as it basically had no competition implications in the US.
The Instagram one is harder. Sure, it was a better version fo Facebook done right for mobile, but it only had 10mn users when acquired.
I'm not convinced that IG would have been successful if it hadn't been bought by Facebook. For an example of how things can go wrong, look at Snapchat vs Instagram.
I'm not sure on what grounds the US regulators would have blocked the Whatsapp acquisition, as it basically had no competition implications in the US.
The Instagram one is harder. Sure, it was a better version fo Facebook done right for mobile, but it only had 10mn users when acquired.
I'm not convinced that IG would have been successful if it hadn't been bought by Facebook. For an example of how things can go wrong, look at Snapchat vs Instagram.
i think it should be more than a split, it should be outright divestment of any ownership, or controll period.
On the same note, a relative asked me the same thing when they IPO.I thought if Google could make money selling ads why couldn't Facebook. I bought in at IPO price for them. I sold for them about 2 years ago when the price was dropping due to privacy scandals.
I've been giving the wrong answer to "Should I buy Bitcoin" since 2011 or so. I was bearish on Amazon when its stock was at 60 because its P/E ratio was ridiculous. I've learned to just be comfortable with the fact that I'm wrong a lot.
You're not necessarily wrong. It's a long held truism that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
If you're right about what the market should, rationally do, and it does something else, you were still wrong.
I think I successfully communicated, and I'm getting upvoted, but my wording was imprecise. Would that I could edit to add: "[...] if you thought that is what it would do."
Either one is right or the market is irrational? Seems like by that logic one can never really be proven wrong.
You can be right, the market can be wrong, and then the market can crash before you can exit the position.
Imagine, for instance, trying to get actual USD (NOT USDT!) for BTC when that fever dream ends.
Imagine, for instance, trying to get actual USD (NOT USDT!) for BTC when that fever dream ends.
You can get USD for BTC right now, you've been able to get if for nearly a decade and there have never been as many reputable exchanges as there are now.
The exchanges tend to "go down for maintenance" on any big price swing.
Evidence? I've been in crypto a long time and have never experienced this.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but implying it's some sort of repeating pattern is simply false.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but implying it's some sort of repeating pattern is simply false.
https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-exchanges-overwhelmed-on-bit...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/20/sudde...
https://cryptopotato.com/bitfinex-offline-goes-in-unschedule...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/20/sudde...
https://cryptopotato.com/bitfinex-offline-goes-in-unschedule...
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, but little evidence for what you actually claimed.
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, but little evidence for what you actually claimed.
You're moving the goalposts. A day when everyone is trying to get their "money" out is the definition of a high volume day.
there is no end. crypto will continue to swallow up all the world's capital and you'll be furious at how many leading zeros there are in your BTC-priced paycheck.
that's just delusion and cope. if the price keeps going up for years, then no matter what you think you're wrong. the market isn't being irrational, you are.
If you're consistently wrong there's alpha even in that, just doing the opposite would work wonders.
hahaha, don't sweat it mate. I'm right along there with you. I was surrounded by people dropping buckets of cash for GPUs back at the dawn of deep learning and was therefore naturally tempted to buy Nvidia's stock price (30$ at the time). In the end, I shied away due to the high PE too.
I take solace in the fact that some of biggest regrets or mistakes that Warren Buffet & Charlie Munger say they have made are those that you don't see - the deals they could have done but didn't and, in retrospect, should have.
I take solace in the fact that some of biggest regrets or mistakes that Warren Buffet & Charlie Munger say they have made are those that you don't see - the deals they could have done but didn't and, in retrospect, should have.
Why the hell is HN so downvote happy?
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Copy+pasting the rules is even more boring, just move on
I actually think it's good to have the community enforce/explain our standards from time to time, within reason. Dang can't see everything, and where he does it takes time to respond. Downvoting/flagging works too, but some may legitimately not know that they've broken a guideline.
I feel like there's a relevant XKCD here about the irrelevance of commenting on irrelevance but I'm struggling to remember which.
Well, it's not all that relevant to the conversation at hand, anyway... :)
Yes, but it's also clear that there's something very funny going on here, rules be damned
easytiger(3)
Why can't I downvote?
You need 501 karma.
Thanks for answering my question instead of downvoting it!
You may find this page helpful, I know I did (In the sense that it let me better understand what all was going on).
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented
That 1 is triggering my OCD.
Well, you could also phrase it as “You need more than 500 karma.” :)
/r/LOLHackerNews
One big difference between FB/MySpace is OAuth - you can dump FB the social network, but much harder to dump FB the identity verification service. OAuth in theory is great, in practice it has been an anti-competitive/anti-privacy Trojan Horse.
In hindsight, i think a big part is that myspace's reach extended mostly to early adopter internet users. Early adopters jump on ships early, but also jump off easily too. Once everyone's parents and grandparents jumped on to facebook, that's a much better moat.
FB buying up the competition probably helped too.
FB buying up the competition probably helped too.
> FB buying up the competition probably helped too.
Which the FTC could have stopped at any time.
Which the FTC could have stopped at any time.
The prior administration was very cosy with Google and Facebook, which helped even more.
Honest question: how so?
I don't follow usa politics all that closely, so i'm honestly curious how specificly were they cozy?
I don't follow usa politics all that closely, so i'm honestly curious how specificly were they cozy?
The way facebook is different is that it isn't just a social network, it IS your online identity. The fact that they make you use your real name rather than just some username is what made it work. And what continues to make it a more permanent part of who you are digitally. Facebook login makes it even more intertwined and hard to remove.
The fact that there are a great number of people not on Facebook whose online identity is just fine is ample refutation of this absurd claim.
And Facebook login being "necessary"?... Never used it. Never will.
And Facebook login being "necessary"?... Never used it. Never will.
I'm not saying that. Just that this is why it's been so successful - so far...
The lesson is never to answer the question with yes/no. Get them to come up with their own opinion, do their own research, and decide how much to invest in Facebook, if anything at all (it's not really a YES/NO but how much, and for how long...). If they don't want to do all this work... recommend SPY.
[deleted]
My mom asked me the same thing back in 2014 and I essentially felt the same way as you so I said the same thing. She bought some anyway though, and later sold when it hit $200. Glad she didn't listen to me.
paulpauper(3)
I first bought after the clearly emotionally driven price dip at just under $20. It was obvious no one looked at the amount of hard cash they pulled in, and thought using their emotions.
[deleted]
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
> 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 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?
Unfortunately, after skimming through the PDF of the complaint (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1910134fbco...), it appears the FTC is not seeking that remedy.
It appears VR is still too small of a market for them to care about.
It appears VR is still too small of a market for them to care about.
Also, Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on VR - there are several competitors in the market, like HTC and Valve.
Yeah, and that might be because Valve is too expensive for them to buy.
Seems a bit short-sighted because if Oculus becomes the dominant VR platform that Facebook envisions it to be then it's going to dwarf instagram in terms of economic importance (for advertisers and users) over the long term.
That's a big if, one that hinges on way too many things to be able to successfully argue in court about:
1) VR ever becoming a huge player. It might. It might not. Right now there's no real evidence that VR will actually become a big deal, and Facebook could argue that this is a niche offering that can't be anti-competitive because there's no real market yet.
2) The feasibility of VR technology independent of major vendors. There's a strong possibility that without a huge R&D budget VR will never overcome the hurdles that might keep it out of the mainstream. Facebook could argue that removing Oculus would doom VR to failure in the market.
3) The Sirus/XM merger removed 100% of satellite radio competition (there's only one vendor left after the merger), but both Sirius and XM successfully argued that the market isn't big enough to support multiple vendors. Facebook could argue a similar case, that for the health of the VR market there should be fewer competitors.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if any of those would be winning arguments, but based on previous anti-trust cases I've followed that would be the strategy I would expect. And it might be why the FTC didn't go down that path.
1) VR ever becoming a huge player. It might. It might not. Right now there's no real evidence that VR will actually become a big deal, and Facebook could argue that this is a niche offering that can't be anti-competitive because there's no real market yet.
2) The feasibility of VR technology independent of major vendors. There's a strong possibility that without a huge R&D budget VR will never overcome the hurdles that might keep it out of the mainstream. Facebook could argue that removing Oculus would doom VR to failure in the market.
3) The Sirus/XM merger removed 100% of satellite radio competition (there's only one vendor left after the merger), but both Sirius and XM successfully argued that the market isn't big enough to support multiple vendors. Facebook could argue a similar case, that for the health of the VR market there should be fewer competitors.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if any of those would be winning arguments, but based on previous anti-trust cases I've followed that would be the strategy I would expect. And it might be why the FTC didn't go down that path.
The flip side of it is that VR isn't mature enough for a company like Oculus to succeed independently. Having the resources of Facebook behind it will help the VR market as a whole (for now).
I think the FTC will deal with that as it comes. Including that in this case would be speculating the future of the Oculus business.
Ugh, yeah Facebook probably bought Oculus thinking:
-What if a lot of people use these in the future
-What if they're really comfy when they get slim, and people use them all the time, even for essentially web browsing.
-Later models can easily have internal and mouth facing cameras so you can smile at people in VR
-Let's intimately observe the finest twitch of every expression felt by our users, peering deep into their minds, learning more about how to manipulate and destroy humans than anyone ever thought possible.
-What if a lot of people use these in the future
-What if they're really comfy when they get slim, and people use them all the time, even for essentially web browsing.
-Later models can easily have internal and mouth facing cameras so you can smile at people in VR
-Let's intimately observe the finest twitch of every expression felt by our users, peering deep into their minds, learning more about how to manipulate and destroy humans than anyone ever thought possible.
Their thinking is pretty much all laid out in the 2015 Zuckerberg memo on VR/AR: https://twitter.com/lucasmtny/status/1095861887588229120?s=2...
Ava the Oculus Connect 6 keynote video on YouTube.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a VR headset worn on a human face - forever."
(Apologies to George Orwell.)
(Apologies to George Orwell.)
Damn straight. The prospect of how much you can learn about human reactions is INCREDIBLE. Eye and mouth tracking is everything, here: it would be turning a wide variety of human behavior study into Big Data and straightforward machine learning.
What would you do with it? What wouldn't you do with it?
What would you do with it? What wouldn't you do with it?
> I know it's a pipe dream, but an independent Oculus would make me so happy
While that would cool for short-term, independent Oculus can stagnate. VR still needs many more billions to be truly usable, and I don't think independent company will be able to fund it.
While that would cool for short-term, independent Oculus can stagnate. VR still needs many more billions to be truly usable, and I don't think independent company will be able to fund it.
> independent Oculus can stagnate
My experience has been that technology is far more likely to stagnate at BigCo than SmallCo - especially if SmallCo's only source of revenue is said technology.
My experience has been that technology is far more likely to stagnate at BigCo than SmallCo - especially if SmallCo's only source of revenue is said technology.
FB are pouring billions into oculus. They intend to operate it at a loss for a good 5 more years.
Only when AR is a thing will they stat to push for profitability.
Only when AR is a thing will they stat to push for profitability.
I think this is the problem. Operating at a loss while wiping out players without deep pockets to run at a loss.
This should be illegal. Amazon and Uber have wiped out small players.
This should be illegal. Amazon and Uber have wiped out small players.
If they are dumping billions into manufacturing, and selling at a loss, maybe that's a problem. If they are dumping billions in to R&D and improving the tech, then let them do it.
That would make all new business illegal, as you operate at a loss for multiple years.
At some point it needs to be illegal. When a large company of 30000 employees starts wiping out entire industries with cash buffers, you can see why this is just wrong and monopolistic/oligopolistic behavior.
The problem with this is that would make virtually all of silicon valley start ups illegal.
In terms of loss, the actual hardware is profitable as far as I've heard.
In terms of loss, the actual hardware is profitable as far as I've heard.
There's a large difference between using your profits to crush competition in another area, versus setting dollar bills on fire in the pursuit of growth.
There should be regulations around both of these, but they'll need to be different ones.
There should be regulations around both of these, but they'll need to be different ones.
I agree that this maybe should be illegal, but on the flip what is forcing the other companies to operate at a loss? I would think the name “Facebook” backing oculus means more than a low price
I think down the line that would be true, but Facebook's willingness to burn literal billions of dollars at this point is basically the only thing carrying VR. Id love to see it split off in the future though.
I'm not sure big money is what is needed to create a flourishing VR sector. The appeal of VR has always been creating virtual experiences that are different and unique. honestly I think it makes much more sense for that scene to be decentralised and independent. Kind of like Minecraft came about, I have trouble imagining it as some sort big money project.
I don't think the issue with VR at this point is so much technical than it is that nobody's yet been creative enough to make something truly unique with it.
I don't think the issue with VR at this point is so much technical than it is that nobody's yet been creative enough to make something truly unique with it.
Agree. VR is not more than a novelty and gaming tool yet. Gaming is a huge potential, but I think the real use cases haven't been proven out yet.
I'm still a believer, but I suspect there are other non-VR technologies that either need to catch up or just figure out how to dovetail for VR to be anything other than a novelty.
I'm still a believer, but I suspect there are other non-VR technologies that either need to catch up or just figure out how to dovetail for VR to be anything other than a novelty.
Oculus doesn't present a monopoly concern in advertising, though.
Just wait until you slip into the Oculus 5 and enjoy a movie night with your friends anywhere in the world!
Oh what’s that? Your eyes looked at the logo on the shirt the hero is wearing, are you perhaps interested in learning more about where you could buy it?
Oh what’s that? Your eyes looked at the logo on the shirt the hero is wearing, are you perhaps interested in learning more about where you could buy it?
Or, if the Oculus becomes the most popular VR equipment, think about the advertising can be shown to people in VR Chat rooms, VR films, virtual cinemas..... all bound to a single company.
Pretty sure the focus is on Instagram and Whatsapp only, not Oculus.
[deleted]
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
If only there were some kind of federal agency, maybe a "trade commission" that could have blocked these mergers when they originally happened ....
When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane.
Instagram for $1B? WhatsApp for $17B? Really?
FTC definitely isn't competent enough to understand how visionary the acquisition was.
To be fair, not many was that competent. Otherwise, Google and other cash-loaded companies would have acquired these companies with higher offer.
It could have easily been Twitter + Vines + Periscope where the acquired products went nowhere.
It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this. But antitrust isn't about being fair to an individual company...
Instagram for $1B? WhatsApp for $17B? Really?
FTC definitely isn't competent enough to understand how visionary the acquisition was.
To be fair, not many was that competent. Otherwise, Google and other cash-loaded companies would have acquired these companies with higher offer.
It could have easily been Twitter + Vines + Periscope where the acquired products went nowhere.
It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this. But antitrust isn't about being fair to an individual company...
> It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this.
I personally disagree with the idea that Zuck was being a "visionary" here. I don't think buying Instagram for $1bn was a particularly visionary move but rather just... cautious. Facebook also bought Gowalla, Lightbox.com, Friendly, TBH and tried to buy Snapchat, Musically (since merged into TikTok), Houseparty, etc. All these are/were competitors and threats. Some were small, some were big. Some worked out and grew, others didn't.
The Instagram acquisition happened fairly early on, so it makes sense that it was worth a lot of money to Facebook. Now that Facebook is huge it can get turned down by a company like Snapchat, and it'll just go ahead and copy/improve its features with its much-larger team, capital, and user-base. Back then, buying the competitor was the best option since Facebook didn't have as many resources or reasons to believe they could compete as effectively.
Moreover, I'd argue the reason Instagram worked out so well is precisely because it got acquired by Facebook. Had Instagram had to figure out its own monetization strategy, find its own clients, compete with the established players, build its own infrastructure, etc. it probably wouldn't have been able to grow as much or as quickly.
I personally disagree with the idea that Zuck was being a "visionary" here. I don't think buying Instagram for $1bn was a particularly visionary move but rather just... cautious. Facebook also bought Gowalla, Lightbox.com, Friendly, TBH and tried to buy Snapchat, Musically (since merged into TikTok), Houseparty, etc. All these are/were competitors and threats. Some were small, some were big. Some worked out and grew, others didn't.
The Instagram acquisition happened fairly early on, so it makes sense that it was worth a lot of money to Facebook. Now that Facebook is huge it can get turned down by a company like Snapchat, and it'll just go ahead and copy/improve its features with its much-larger team, capital, and user-base. Back then, buying the competitor was the best option since Facebook didn't have as many resources or reasons to believe they could compete as effectively.
Moreover, I'd argue the reason Instagram worked out so well is precisely because it got acquired by Facebook. Had Instagram had to figure out its own monetization strategy, find its own clients, compete with the established players, build its own infrastructure, etc. it probably wouldn't have been able to grow as much or as quickly.
To be fair, that Whatsapp deal still looks insane. Still no meaningful revenue coming from that end 8 years later
Except the revenue that they potentially would have been losing out on had they not acquired their competitor.
Nobody really knows how much that would be.
But everyone will make up a number to support whatever side of the argument they are on.
In any case, Whatsapp as a standalone company would definitely go bankrupt. The infra cost would be insane with such little revenue.
But everyone will make up a number to support whatever side of the argument they are on.
In any case, Whatsapp as a standalone company would definitely go bankrupt. The infra cost would be insane with such little revenue.
> When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane.
Maybe that's a sign that the acquisitions deserved more scrutiny?
Maybe that's a sign that the acquisitions deserved more scrutiny?
[deleted]
The FTC allowed the IG merger because
* No ads (lol)
* Competition from Google even if it did have ads
* FB had no competitive photo app
* No ads (lol)
* Competition from Google even if it did have ads
* FB had no competitive photo app
Thanks Obama.
But seriously, by what rationale would you block the purchase in 2012? Instagram only had 25 million users at the time.
But seriously, by what rationale would you block the purchase in 2012? Instagram only had 25 million users at the time.
You don't just look at Instagram when you evaluate the acquisition, you look at Facebook also.
Facebook was huge, and Instagram didn't represent anything Facebook couldn't just build themselves, other than the growing user base. So there is your rationale, the behemoth shouldn't be completely free to consolidate users. Of course the details of how big is too big and so on are the hard part.
Facebook was huge, and Instagram didn't represent anything Facebook couldn't just build themselves, other than the growing user base. So there is your rationale, the behemoth shouldn't be completely free to consolidate users. Of course the details of how big is too big and so on are the hard part.
I think that's the point. If it wasn't anticompetitive then, why is it now?
From a privacy point of view I agree that it sounds like a good thing and I hope it happens.
From an entrepreneurial point of view I wonder how it will affect the future of big tech players acquiring other companies.
From an entrepreneurial point of view I wonder how it will affect the future of big tech players acquiring other companies.
> From an entrepreneurial point of view I wonder how it will affect the future of big tech players acquiring other companies.
It won't.
The full power of the United States does not reverse all those shares you sold to a big tech company, or sold as a big shareholder of a big tech company.
If the market tolerates a price, based on their own exuberance and view of future revenues, that is fine here, and the incentives will continue to promote near term profits with a who-gives-a-shit slim possibility of cleanup by the regulators.
Corporations are just a conduit for money, and the regulators only enforce actions on the conduit, and thats a maybe.
It won't.
The full power of the United States does not reverse all those shares you sold to a big tech company, or sold as a big shareholder of a big tech company.
If the market tolerates a price, based on their own exuberance and view of future revenues, that is fine here, and the incentives will continue to promote near term profits with a who-gives-a-shit slim possibility of cleanup by the regulators.
Corporations are just a conduit for money, and the regulators only enforce actions on the conduit, and thats a maybe.
Oh that's awesome. I haven't been able to pry my family away from those two, even though they openly admit that Facebook is evil/sucks.
Oculus too please!
I'm holding off on merging my Oculus and Facebook accounts as long as possible in hopes that someone tells them to get the hell out of here with that nonsense.
I'm holding off on merging my Oculus and Facebook accounts as long as possible in hopes that someone tells them to get the hell out of here with that nonsense.
[deleted]
Will splitting off Instagram make a meaningful difference given how little protections there are around selling advertising data?
I agree we would’ve been better off if they had never been allowed to buy Instagram AND we had meaningful laws in place, but I don’t see how this fundamentally changes things given where we are now.
I agree we would’ve been better off if they had never been allowed to buy Instagram AND we had meaningful laws in place, but I don’t see how this fundamentally changes things given where we are now.
Huge. I'm glad Zuckerberg is probably panicking.
Even if they were three separate companies wouldn't Mark still have voting control of all three companies?
I think divestiture would mean a full spin-off to an independent entity.
Generally no, he couldn't do that, as that would be the opposite of the concept of divestment.
I don't think so? Can anyone answer this definitively?
The FTC could, potentially, require:
1. That FB split into N independent companies, whereupon each share of FB would become 1 share in each of N companies.
2. That the supermajor shareholders (say, more than 10% of any company) each pick at most one company to retain that interest in, and sell off shares in the other companies until they had less than 10% of each of those).
3. That the new companies avoid overlapping directors.
It would be a long time in court. See the breakup of AT&T.
1. That FB split into N independent companies, whereupon each share of FB would become 1 share in each of N companies.
2. That the supermajor shareholders (say, more than 10% of any company) each pick at most one company to retain that interest in, and sell off shares in the other companies until they had less than 10% of each of those).
3. That the new companies avoid overlapping directors.
It would be a long time in court. See the breakup of AT&T.
And then it would eventually come back together. See ATT.
https://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-hist...
https://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-hist...
"And then it would eventually come back together." That would be hilarious.
But are there not multiple phone companies now instead of just one?
They have all pretty much merged back into AT&T or Verizon. Those two companies together would be the original MA Bell.
And Centurylink.
Duopolies are bad, but I'd say still better than monopolies.
Yes, it was just a possibly funny observation that most of the entities created from the monopoly ended up back in an entity called ATT.
Reminds me of Terminator 2.
Even better, Standard Oil.
Is this not itself an antitrust issue? If so, why?
I am unclear why he would be panicking.
Best case: there's a lot of legal kerfuffle and he is a multi-billionaire
Worst case: there's a lot of legal kerfuffle and he is a multi-billionaire
Worst case: there's a lot of legal kerfuffle and he is a multi-billionaire
Monopoly of what? Some other social networks I use every day or so: Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok and various forums and communities like this one, which in my mind are pretty similar to a social network.
And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams.
Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?
And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams.
Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?
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 being viable in any way, other than to mention the wagons and horses of the internet. This is not to comment on a level of sophistication, but features. What can you sell on TikTok through TikTok? It's a category error to equate them with FB. Facebook has cultivated this state of affairs, and they have gone out of their way to interfere with the success of companies it views as competition.[2]
This is even before we get to the use of Facebook to create negative externalities, for which it provides powerful tools. On purpose.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890#...
2. https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/in-antitrust-hearing-zucke...
It's the fact that Facebook is "Facebook" that is the problem. That you can't imagine Facebook's equal being viable in any way, other than to mention the wagons and horses of the internet. This is not to comment on a level of sophistication, but features. What can you sell on TikTok through TikTok? It's a category error to equate them with FB. Facebook has cultivated this state of affairs, and they have gone out of their way to interfere with the success of companies it views as competition.[2]
This is even before we get to the use of Facebook to create negative externalities, for which it provides powerful tools. On purpose.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890#...
2. https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/in-antitrust-hearing-zucke...
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.
If they interfere with the competition, that is.
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."
Basically, yeah.
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 appropriately. This is one of the major reasons they metastasize.
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 appropriately. This is one of the major reasons they metastasize.
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?
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?
>I’m still confused as to which “market” is harmed: advertisers? Facebook users? other social networks?
Even with scare quotes it's not a multiple: the social network of Facebook users is an advertising market. You don't have to be a snot-nosed growth hacker to see that FB has a monopoly position in advertising.
Here's a test: does FB have any reason to care about the quality of whatever is being advertised in any one ad? Where are you going to advertise if FB keeps putting your ads for your doctor's office next to ones for a child-rape rock opera and/or "COVID-19 is a hoax" seminars? What is your recourse, switching your advertising to Parler and LinkedIn? NYTimes dot com? The 72 next most popular social networking sites around the world? Surely VKontakte runs a clean house.
Again, look at railroads. In the Trust era, trains were not the product, were not the market. Transportation was.
Here's a nice little rundown: https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1336813617736507397
Even with scare quotes it's not a multiple: the social network of Facebook users is an advertising market. You don't have to be a snot-nosed growth hacker to see that FB has a monopoly position in advertising.
Here's a test: does FB have any reason to care about the quality of whatever is being advertised in any one ad? Where are you going to advertise if FB keeps putting your ads for your doctor's office next to ones for a child-rape rock opera and/or "COVID-19 is a hoax" seminars? What is your recourse, switching your advertising to Parler and LinkedIn? NYTimes dot com? The 72 next most popular social networking sites around the world? Surely VKontakte runs a clean house.
Again, look at railroads. In the Trust era, trains were not the product, were not the market. Transportation was.
Here's a nice little rundown: https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1336813617736507397
> 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.
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.
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.
If only the same entity that is now suing them for antitrust didn't approve these acquisitions, and fairly recently as well.
They didn't "approve" it, they closed their investigation, which they specifically called out as not saying there's no violation(s): https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/closing-le...
That's right, they approved Whatsapp, everyone laughed at the instagram acquisition because they paid 1b and the company had 13 employees and 10m DAU. The company would be nowhere without FB.
Change has to start somewhere. Why not with the entity that is now admitting it was wrong?
Because it wasn't wrong at the time of the acquisition, IG as a company had 13 employees and 10m DAU, everyone was clowning on FB for wasting their money. The company would have went nowhere without FBs network effect, after all it's entire feed was based on pictures posted on FB. FB is just a political scapegoat just like Goog, if we were interested in antitrust we'd be knocking on AT&T's door and not giving them more grant funding every year.
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
Mostly because your definition of "market" is naive (in the generic sense, not a personal insult) and too-narrow.
Because Facebook eats the big upstarts, as evident by Instagram and WhatsApp.
I think we need to both break up and regulate them.
We had a few decades of true antitrust, but the efforts to undermine it were successful. Check out Goliath by Matt Stoller for a decent history.
We had a few decades of true antitrust, but the efforts to undermine it were successful. Check out Goliath by Matt Stoller for a decent history.
> iMessage, Slack, Teams
These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, among other things.
These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, among other things.
Yet they can do so very easily at the flip of a button, so to speak. The capability exists, and simply because potential competitors choose to not compete in the same space is what makes WhatsApp a monopoly?
See Skype, for example - the largest market penetration for a period of time and practically no one uses them any more. They were video-centric, yet the user base is already there for an extension into a primarily text medium. Not tied to an employer, doesn't require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, etc...
See Skype, for example - the largest market penetration for a period of time and practically no one uses them any more. They were video-centric, yet the user base is already there for an extension into a primarily text medium. Not tied to an employer, doesn't require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, etc...
Choosing not to compete can also be a sign of a monopoly. Why invest in a line of business that you know you’re going up against a behemoth?
And had they been able to, what do you think would’ve happened to Skype had it been acquired by Facebook back when it was the main game in town? I think that’s the point.
They would've had competition.
Whatsapp has other competitors currently. Telegram and Viber come readily to mind, and I am certain there are other services that I'm not aware of, the old fart that I am.
Whatsapp was incredibly popular in most of the underdeveloped world, where it became the de facto messaging app because of the low data requirements and ubiquitousness (and probable subsidies via the ISP provider). This was prior to FB buying them. Out of my group of contacts, the Telegram app notified me over the past year that roughly 2 dozen have signed up for it, e.g. That's another (albeit anecdotal) sign.
I understand the antagonism toward FB/Whatsapp/Instagram, given the consolidation of social networks within the purview of one entity, but not a single one of those services is a monopoly.
Could very well be I don't understand the intricacies of the law, and such consolidation is perhaps illegal for the betterment of society, but I'm not convinced that's the case still. Microsoft, for example, was accused of monopolistic behavior because they had enough power to pressure manufacturers to bundle IE with the OS. No such thing is happening in this situation. IANAL, but that's my simplistic take on it.
I stand to be corrected.
Whatsapp has other competitors currently. Telegram and Viber come readily to mind, and I am certain there are other services that I'm not aware of, the old fart that I am.
Whatsapp was incredibly popular in most of the underdeveloped world, where it became the de facto messaging app because of the low data requirements and ubiquitousness (and probable subsidies via the ISP provider). This was prior to FB buying them. Out of my group of contacts, the Telegram app notified me over the past year that roughly 2 dozen have signed up for it, e.g. That's another (albeit anecdotal) sign.
I understand the antagonism toward FB/Whatsapp/Instagram, given the consolidation of social networks within the purview of one entity, but not a single one of those services is a monopoly.
Could very well be I don't understand the intricacies of the law, and such consolidation is perhaps illegal for the betterment of society, but I'm not convinced that's the case still. Microsoft, for example, was accused of monopolistic behavior because they had enough power to pressure manufacturers to bundle IE with the OS. No such thing is happening in this situation. IANAL, but that's my simplistic take on it.
I stand to be corrected.
Instagram was not the "main game in town" when Facebook acquired them. It was one of many photo sharing/editing apps and had far less market penetration than it does today. Why should Facebook be punished for acquiring a promising app and turning it into what it is today by integrating it into its ecosystem?
Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time of acquisition it was far from a sure thing and it's safe to say that without Facebook resources Instagram would not be what it is today.
Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time of acquisition it was far from a sure thing and it's safe to say that without Facebook resources Instagram would not be what it is today.
I remember when Instagram was acquired and it seemed like everybody was using them, they were getting mocked on the night TV and SNL, it certainly seems to me they had the primary mindshare and threat to the social media experience at the time.
Line, Viber, Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.....there is so much competition in the messaging space.
Not to mention WeChat with 1.2B MAU.
WhatsApp is basically the norm outside of the US from what I can tell?
So yeah, there's really no "competition". Either you have whatsapp or you don't talk to people.
And it's highly used for cross-business communication in Europe, I can tell you that.
So yeah, there's really no "competition". Either you have whatsapp or you don't talk to people.
And it's highly used for cross-business communication in Europe, I can tell you that.
It seems its no competition because people like it not because there are no other options, because there are plenty
But my point is "it's the norm".
Either you use WhatsApp or you don't talk to people.
And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, really.. I think "monopolies" have their place in standardizing things that we do and it makes it convenient.
(Side note: if fucking Apple would open up iMessage on android/windows they would OWN the chat market in a matter of minutes in the US)
But there does get to a point where you cannot say "people use it because they like it". Most people use it solely because everyone else uses it.
Just like Facebook. There is no "alternative" for real-life profile social media. If you want to use that type of social media, Facebook is the only thing whether you like it or not.
Either you use WhatsApp or you don't talk to people.
And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, really.. I think "monopolies" have their place in standardizing things that we do and it makes it convenient.
(Side note: if fucking Apple would open up iMessage on android/windows they would OWN the chat market in a matter of minutes in the US)
But there does get to a point where you cannot say "people use it because they like it". Most people use it solely because everyone else uses it.
Just like Facebook. There is no "alternative" for real-life profile social media. If you want to use that type of social media, Facebook is the only thing whether you like it or not.
Isnt that the case of network effects though ?
Facebook started off in a market with Orkut, Myspace, Friendster and along came Path, Twitter, Google+. Facebook had network effects and people gravitated towards it.
So this is basically saying network effect is bad. You cant get too popular.
Facebook started off in a market with Orkut, Myspace, Friendster and along came Path, Twitter, Google+. Facebook had network effects and people gravitated towards it.
So this is basically saying network effect is bad. You cant get too popular.
Yes, it’s network effects. One company with a large accepted network acquires another company with a large accepted network to avoid competing with it, and creating an even larger behemoth with services that will dominate both arms of that industry.
That is where mandatory interoperability could help. We do not have insular e-mail systems that cannot communicate with one another. In case of IM, interoperability would go a long way towards reducing dominance of Facebook.
Splitting WA from Facebook isn’t going to change that though. It’s still going to look like WA is a monopoly, then what?
> WhatsApp is basically the norm outside of the US from what I can tell?
Which would mean that the lawsuit would fail. pretty much everything that happens outside of the USA is irrelevant for this lawsuit.
Which would mean that the lawsuit would fail. pretty much everything that happens outside of the USA is irrelevant for this lawsuit.
yeah would make more sense to break iMessage or force them to open APIs
No, they do compete with WhatsApp, on the basis of those points of differentiation.
Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage.
Even in countries where iPhones are ubiquitous the cross-platform nature of Whatsapp and the fact that everyone from your friend to your grandmother is on it, makes it dominant.
Yes you could use Slack to message your friends like you would on Whatsapp. The experience won’t be the same, and setup will be a hurdle. But would you use Whatsapp to replace Slack at work?
I think the term “compete” is used very broadly here.
Even in countries where iPhones are ubiquitous the cross-platform nature of Whatsapp and the fact that everyone from your friend to your grandmother is on it, makes it dominant.
Yes you could use Slack to message your friends like you would on Whatsapp. The experience won’t be the same, and setup will be a hurdle. But would you use Whatsapp to replace Slack at work?
I think the term “compete” is used very broadly here.
> Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage.
do you have data to back up that claim?
do you have data to back up that claim?
Fair point, I should have provided some sort of link. See the graph showing Top Messaging Apps by Country. South America, Africa, Asia is mostly Whatsapp. If you combine FB Messenger and Whatsapp, then FB controls most of the messaging market share in most regions, with a few notable exceptions like WeChat in China.
https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/mobile-messaging-app-ma...
And as an alternative source:
https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/mobile-messaging-app-ma...
And as an alternative source:
https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
These numbers can't be correct as there is no mention of iMessage who's the biggest chat app in the usa.
From the second link it appears that iMessage is not counted because it is preinstalled on iPhones and is not cross platform:
"4. iMessage
Communication apps like WhatsApp are available on practically all devices, whereas native apps like Apple’s iMessage (and now Apple Business Chat) are limited to one provider.
However, the user base for iPhone is constantly growing in the USA. A lot of adolescents prefer iMessage to apps like Snapchat in order to reach out to their friends.
Since iMessage is a pre-installed service of Apple, there are no official messaging usage statistics as they keep those “in-house”. Looking at the ever-growing demand and distribution of iOS devices though, we can assume that the pool of iMessage users is growing. In the fiscal year of 2017, Apple reached a quantity of 216.76 million iPhones."
"4. iMessage
Communication apps like WhatsApp are available on practically all devices, whereas native apps like Apple’s iMessage (and now Apple Business Chat) are limited to one provider.
However, the user base for iPhone is constantly growing in the USA. A lot of adolescents prefer iMessage to apps like Snapchat in order to reach out to their friends.
Since iMessage is a pre-installed service of Apple, there are no official messaging usage statistics as they keep those “in-house”. Looking at the ever-growing demand and distribution of iOS devices though, we can assume that the pool of iMessage users is growing. In the fiscal year of 2017, Apple reached a quantity of 216.76 million iPhones."
I have anectada... basically everyone in my contact list has whatsapp... even all the iphone users. Mostly for the group chats.
iMessage no worky for groups because you'd be excluding the Android users. Group SMS... I don't think anyone over here is even aware that's an option. I only know about it from Americans on HN saying they use it.
iMessage no worky for groups because you'd be excluding the Android users. Group SMS... I don't think anyone over here is even aware that's an option. I only know about it from Americans on HN saying they use it.
Could the average Facebook user readily replace their use of Facebook with LinkedIn or TikTok? I am not a big user of any of those products, but I have the distinct impression that the answer is no.
From the FTC.gov[1]:
"The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications."
Does FB unreasonably restrain competition? (My answer is no)
Does FB have an alternative? (Mewe/Parler/Gab etc. - Mewe being the most direct alternative)
Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. - I'd say no.
I don't see anything this lawsuit stands on.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications."
Does FB unreasonably restrain competition? (My answer is no)
Does FB have an alternative? (Mewe/Parler/Gab etc. - Mewe being the most direct alternative)
Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. - I'd say no.
I don't see anything this lawsuit stands on.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
The lawsuit is about Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram effectively roping in users from other platforms into their advertising ecosystem. The monetisation of your data in exchange for adverts can be seen as the cost of the platforms. By aggressively increasing advertising on Instagram and attempting to take steps to monetize WhatsApp, Facebook are raising prices. As far as I understand the question is whether it is their abuse of monopoly power that allows them to do this.
For a time people had few alternatives to Instagram or Facebook, which were effectively in competition with each other. This meant that has Facebook monetised your data more, ie increase prices, users were forced to pay if they wanted to stay on a popular social network.
TikTok is a recent phenomenon. Secondly it is not enough to consider the UX cost of switching to another platform but also the network effect. Is Mewe/Parker/Gab really a substitute for me if I don’t enjoy the network effects I have on Facebook or Instagram?
For a time people had few alternatives to Instagram or Facebook, which were effectively in competition with each other. This meant that has Facebook monetised your data more, ie increase prices, users were forced to pay if they wanted to stay on a popular social network.
TikTok is a recent phenomenon. Secondly it is not enough to consider the UX cost of switching to another platform but also the network effect. Is Mewe/Parker/Gab really a substitute for me if I don’t enjoy the network effects I have on Facebook or Instagram?
> The monetisation of your data in exchange for adverts can be seen as the cost of the platforms.
It will be interesting to see the government prove this for Facebook while ignoring the 800lb gorillas of Google/Doubleclick or Amazon’s ad network.
It will be interesting to see the government prove this for Facebook while ignoring the 800lb gorillas of Google/Doubleclick or Amazon’s ad network.
It's why this is a politicized move by the FTC. No reason to get into politics on this site, but it's pretty obvious.
Even politically it’s just ... weird. Most of the top content on Facebook each month is sympathetic to the current administration. Facebook has arguably played the most ball with them in comparison to other tech companies.
Yes, but FB are hated by both left and right (for entirely different reasons), so this is likely to actually go ahead.
The notion that FB increase ad prices by increasing the supply of ads is completely insane though, and I hope that's a misunderstanding by the parent poster.
FB/IG have an auction-based ads system, which means that you pay what other advertisers think the user is worth, rather than what you think the user is worth. In such a system, prices increasing (along with supply) is a symptom of massive, massive demand rather than a nefarious plot on FB's part.
Don't get me wrong, FB have done a bunch of shady stuff over the years, but this lawsuit seems pretty wrongheaded to me.
The notion that FB increase ad prices by increasing the supply of ads is completely insane though, and I hope that's a misunderstanding by the parent poster.
FB/IG have an auction-based ads system, which means that you pay what other advertisers think the user is worth, rather than what you think the user is worth. In such a system, prices increasing (along with supply) is a symptom of massive, massive demand rather than a nefarious plot on FB's part.
Don't get me wrong, FB have done a bunch of shady stuff over the years, but this lawsuit seems pretty wrongheaded to me.
Hi I was referring to the cost of advertising for users not advertisers. Sure advertisers pay a cost based on an auction system which is subject to laws of supply and demand.
However the cost that users pay for engaging on the platform is the use of their data. So I guess what I meant by aggressively increase the “price” of advertising was referring to the hidden cost of Facebook being able to serve adverts in the first place.
As others have pointed out, anti-monopoly legislation os largely about preventing firms from abusing monopoly power to increase prices. If you consider the cost of using a social network to be the data the user provides, then the more data the user gives up to the use the social network, the higher the cost. Because of the strong network effect, users may have little choice but to stay on the platform if they wish to engage in the social network. The notion is that Facebook are abusing the stickiness of their social network by increasing monetisation of user data, knowing that users won’t easily leave.
By purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp, at the time the two biggest threats to engagement on Facebook the website, Facebook the company are able to coalesce the three networks, making stickiness stronger, making it easier to raise prices (consumption of user data in exchange for adverts) and thereby abusing a monopoly position.
However the cost that users pay for engaging on the platform is the use of their data. So I guess what I meant by aggressively increase the “price” of advertising was referring to the hidden cost of Facebook being able to serve adverts in the first place.
As others have pointed out, anti-monopoly legislation os largely about preventing firms from abusing monopoly power to increase prices. If you consider the cost of using a social network to be the data the user provides, then the more data the user gives up to the use the social network, the higher the cost. Because of the strong network effect, users may have little choice but to stay on the platform if they wish to engage in the social network. The notion is that Facebook are abusing the stickiness of their social network by increasing monetisation of user data, knowing that users won’t easily leave.
By purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp, at the time the two biggest threats to engagement on Facebook the website, Facebook the company are able to coalesce the three networks, making stickiness stronger, making it easier to raise prices (consumption of user data in exchange for adverts) and thereby abusing a monopoly position.
> As others have pointed out, anti-monopoly legislation os largely about preventing firms from abusing monopoly power to increase prices. If you consider the cost of using a social network to be the data the user provides, then the more data the user gives up to the use the social network, the higher the cost.
Unfortunately this is a wildly speculative argument, which is unlikely to find favour with regulators in this case.
Even if it weren't speculative, how do you define the value of data? Is it by bits and bytes, or as the expected lift from incorporating it into a model? If I improve FB's/Google's ad models, do I increase the cost of all of their users? That seems ludicrous to me, but maybe that seems fine to you.
> However the cost that users pay for engaging on the platform is the use of their data. So I guess what I meant by aggressively increase the “price” of advertising was referring to the hidden cost of Facebook being able to serve adverts in the first place.
This is a trade. You and I may think this is a poor trade, but it's one that many, many users make (and like) daily. In no sense is it a cost.
Additionally, if (hypothetically) one chooses to make advertising-supported websites illegal, then that leads to FB (and Google) shutting down, which I don't see as a net positive for the world. (Certainly most of their users wouldn't think so).
> By purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp, at the time the two biggest threats to engagement on Facebook the website, Facebook the company are able to coalesce the three networks, making stickiness stronger, making it easier to raise prices (consumption of user data in exchange for adverts) and thereby abusing a monopoly position.
So I don't agree with your argument about prices, so I'm not going to engage with it further (if you need to explain what a standard term means in the context of your argument, that's normally a warning sign).
However, IG had 20mn users when it got acquired. The consensus here was that it was a terrible idea and that FB would shut it down. We're now in a world where it has 1bn users and mints money for FB. Now, it definitely looks like FB acted badly.
But consider the alternative. FB are blocked from buying IG, so IG need to set up a sales team, an adevertising method and epxand globally. None of these things are cheap or trivial. There does exist a world where IG competes on a level-playing field independently, but I would argue that at least 80% of the time, this hypothetical leads to IG either under-performing or flaming out.
And to be fair, at the time of the IG purchase, the biggest threat to Facebook was mobile (once upon a time, FB had no ads on mobile).
Whatsapp again, should have been stopped by the EU, but there were little to no competition concerns raised within the US based on that acquisition, as nobody in the US used Whatsapp at the time.
Unfortunately this is a wildly speculative argument, which is unlikely to find favour with regulators in this case.
Even if it weren't speculative, how do you define the value of data? Is it by bits and bytes, or as the expected lift from incorporating it into a model? If I improve FB's/Google's ad models, do I increase the cost of all of their users? That seems ludicrous to me, but maybe that seems fine to you.
> However the cost that users pay for engaging on the platform is the use of their data. So I guess what I meant by aggressively increase the “price” of advertising was referring to the hidden cost of Facebook being able to serve adverts in the first place.
This is a trade. You and I may think this is a poor trade, but it's one that many, many users make (and like) daily. In no sense is it a cost.
Additionally, if (hypothetically) one chooses to make advertising-supported websites illegal, then that leads to FB (and Google) shutting down, which I don't see as a net positive for the world. (Certainly most of their users wouldn't think so).
> By purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp, at the time the two biggest threats to engagement on Facebook the website, Facebook the company are able to coalesce the three networks, making stickiness stronger, making it easier to raise prices (consumption of user data in exchange for adverts) and thereby abusing a monopoly position.
So I don't agree with your argument about prices, so I'm not going to engage with it further (if you need to explain what a standard term means in the context of your argument, that's normally a warning sign).
However, IG had 20mn users when it got acquired. The consensus here was that it was a terrible idea and that FB would shut it down. We're now in a world where it has 1bn users and mints money for FB. Now, it definitely looks like FB acted badly.
But consider the alternative. FB are blocked from buying IG, so IG need to set up a sales team, an adevertising method and epxand globally. None of these things are cheap or trivial. There does exist a world where IG competes on a level-playing field independently, but I would argue that at least 80% of the time, this hypothetical leads to IG either under-performing or flaming out.
And to be fair, at the time of the IG purchase, the biggest threat to Facebook was mobile (once upon a time, FB had no ads on mobile).
Whatsapp again, should have been stopped by the EU, but there were little to no competition concerns raised within the US based on that acquisition, as nobody in the US used Whatsapp at the time.
> Unfortunately this is a wildly speculative argument, which is unlikely to find favour with regulators in this case.
I admit it is speculative but the argument encapsulates the abuse of the social network as I see it, which is why I'm running with it. It remains to be seen what angle the regulators will present when proving abuse of monopoly power.
However I cannot separate what Facebook is able to do on its social network without consequence from the idea that Facebook is an abusive monopoly.
> If I improve FB's/Google's ad models, do I increase the cost of all of their users? That seems ludicrous to me, but maybe that seems fine to you.
Consider the "user price of improvement". Suppose that an initial model m1 only needs to regress on a users age, gender and location to guarantee a clickthrough rate of x%. As the social network grows and there are more users, a larger variety of adverts and longer engagements, all else fixed the clickthrough rate will go down if the users start seeing more irrelevant adverts (more ad bidders but same relatively static input features) as well as repeated adverts (longer engagement times but same input features).
In an effort to increase clickthrough rates either beyond x% or at least to maintain x% in a growing network, the model needs more express power. So m1 is expanded to m2 now using accumulated likes. Fine likes are activity which is generated on FB so that's fair game. But there's a small cost in user privacy: suddenly adverts can be targeted based on your likes.
The network grows and clickthrough rates must still be improved. m2 is expanded to m3 by incorporating activity with friends, including mutual likes. Again this is generated on the social network, but there is a privacy cost: adverts are served based on public and perhaps private interactions.
The network grows and clickthrough rates must still be improved. m3 is expanded to m4 using browser trackers, so now your activity outside of Facebook is used to serve adverts: the privacy cost is increased and suddenly becomes real. FB serves adverts to you based on anything you do on the internet.
<side note: I recently ordered widget A using my laptop browser and the next day I saw an advert on IG for widget A from a competitor on my mobile device. I don't have an FB account and I'm not logged into IG on my laptop browser. I have never seen adverts for widget A on IG until this moment>
Back to my argument. Now at this point FB has a strong social network based on your activity and your friends' activity as well as external network effects based on browsing trackers, log-in with FB identities, as well as your friends' external browsing activity.
The transition from m1 to m4 has required using more and more of your personal data (whether public or private) in order to maintain a clickthrough rate of x%.
> This is a trade. You and I may think this is a poor trade, but it's one that many, many users make (and like) daily. In no sense is it a cost.
Each time the model is improved by adding additional features, those features aren't acquired for free. They're acquired by deliberately mining users' personal information. You might not think this is the case, because data is data and data is stored in bits and bytes, but it has representational value that in many parts of the world (most notably the EU) is protected.
In other words, the change from m1 to m4 in order to serve adverts has incurred a cost in terms of the private data a user must give up in order to receive adverts that are relevant to them (ie maintain a clickthrough rate of x% or higher).
So yes in this sense it is a cost.
Furthermore, in the 21st century, data is a clearly a resource, and has monetary value. It can be mined and gathered from users, which is then used to generate revenue from advertising. Users are not compensated for their data but instead are provided with a free service. If the alternative was to pay for the service, what would the monetary value be? That is the opportunity cost of providing data instead. So yes in that sense it is a cost.
Now let's consider consent. Facebook makes all users accept a privacy policy which constitutes as consent (the minimum requirements now may be higher but the tactic is the same). If the user disagrees they can't use the service. In most cases the user agrees because they want to use the service.
However as Facebook has a large social network and users' don't have many alternatives, the incentive for users to agree to the privacy policy becomes stronger.
If Facebook didn't acquire Instagram, then that last effect is weaker because users' have an alternative. If Facebook mined more data then Instagram, then Facebook is more "expensive" to use than Instagram and vice versa. Competition between the two networks would increase supply and reduce the cost of data required to use either network.
By acquiring Instagram and merging social network graphs (inputs to the model), Facebook effectively remove that dynamic, which gives them monopoly power to keep mining more and more data for marginal or perhaps zero benefit (an increase in costs).
Whether that dynamic would actually play out between users in a world where they are competing networks remains to be seen. Maybe it doesn't and for any network its a race to the bottom in terms of privacy regardless of the number of players.
> But consider the alternative. FB are blocked from buying IG, so IG need to set up a sales team, an adevertising method and epxand globally. None of these things are cheap or trivial. There does exist a world where IG competes on a level-playing field independently, but I would argue that at least 80% of the time, this hypothetical leads to IG either under-performing or flaming out.
Both of these outcomes are speculative, but I'm not convinced about the 80% figure. I'm not sure that IG needed FB alone to get to a billion users. Many of those users aren't necessarily people and are companies, organizations and other entities which use IG for engagement. It's enough that people spend more time on IG than FB the app or website to convince those entities to engage on IG. Not sure what the proportions are exactly but just giving an example.
Anyway, good points you've made and I've learned something so I'm willing to call it a day. I wrote this last essay simply because many of the points you made were simply too dismissive of what I said, without substantiation. Of course I'm not claiming to be right about how regulators will approach their argument, just stating a viewpoint on how FB is able to increase costs for the user, in terms of privacy, while being able to get away with it.
> Additionally, if (hypothetically) one chooses to make advertising-supported websites illegal, then that leads to FB (and Google) shutting down, which I don't see as a net positive for the world. (Certainly most of their users wouldn't think so).
Not sure why you brought up the prospects of advertising-supported websites being illegal. The purpose of regulation is to control abuse. GDPR in the EU does not making advertising illegal, but rather places limits on what information can be used. In the same way that road rules don't make driving illegal.
I admit it is speculative but the argument encapsulates the abuse of the social network as I see it, which is why I'm running with it. It remains to be seen what angle the regulators will present when proving abuse of monopoly power.
However I cannot separate what Facebook is able to do on its social network without consequence from the idea that Facebook is an abusive monopoly.
> If I improve FB's/Google's ad models, do I increase the cost of all of their users? That seems ludicrous to me, but maybe that seems fine to you.
Consider the "user price of improvement". Suppose that an initial model m1 only needs to regress on a users age, gender and location to guarantee a clickthrough rate of x%. As the social network grows and there are more users, a larger variety of adverts and longer engagements, all else fixed the clickthrough rate will go down if the users start seeing more irrelevant adverts (more ad bidders but same relatively static input features) as well as repeated adverts (longer engagement times but same input features).
In an effort to increase clickthrough rates either beyond x% or at least to maintain x% in a growing network, the model needs more express power. So m1 is expanded to m2 now using accumulated likes. Fine likes are activity which is generated on FB so that's fair game. But there's a small cost in user privacy: suddenly adverts can be targeted based on your likes.
The network grows and clickthrough rates must still be improved. m2 is expanded to m3 by incorporating activity with friends, including mutual likes. Again this is generated on the social network, but there is a privacy cost: adverts are served based on public and perhaps private interactions.
The network grows and clickthrough rates must still be improved. m3 is expanded to m4 using browser trackers, so now your activity outside of Facebook is used to serve adverts: the privacy cost is increased and suddenly becomes real. FB serves adverts to you based on anything you do on the internet.
<side note: I recently ordered widget A using my laptop browser and the next day I saw an advert on IG for widget A from a competitor on my mobile device. I don't have an FB account and I'm not logged into IG on my laptop browser. I have never seen adverts for widget A on IG until this moment>
Back to my argument. Now at this point FB has a strong social network based on your activity and your friends' activity as well as external network effects based on browsing trackers, log-in with FB identities, as well as your friends' external browsing activity.
The transition from m1 to m4 has required using more and more of your personal data (whether public or private) in order to maintain a clickthrough rate of x%.
> This is a trade. You and I may think this is a poor trade, but it's one that many, many users make (and like) daily. In no sense is it a cost.
Each time the model is improved by adding additional features, those features aren't acquired for free. They're acquired by deliberately mining users' personal information. You might not think this is the case, because data is data and data is stored in bits and bytes, but it has representational value that in many parts of the world (most notably the EU) is protected.
In other words, the change from m1 to m4 in order to serve adverts has incurred a cost in terms of the private data a user must give up in order to receive adverts that are relevant to them (ie maintain a clickthrough rate of x% or higher).
So yes in this sense it is a cost.
Furthermore, in the 21st century, data is a clearly a resource, and has monetary value. It can be mined and gathered from users, which is then used to generate revenue from advertising. Users are not compensated for their data but instead are provided with a free service. If the alternative was to pay for the service, what would the monetary value be? That is the opportunity cost of providing data instead. So yes in that sense it is a cost.
Now let's consider consent. Facebook makes all users accept a privacy policy which constitutes as consent (the minimum requirements now may be higher but the tactic is the same). If the user disagrees they can't use the service. In most cases the user agrees because they want to use the service.
However as Facebook has a large social network and users' don't have many alternatives, the incentive for users to agree to the privacy policy becomes stronger.
If Facebook didn't acquire Instagram, then that last effect is weaker because users' have an alternative. If Facebook mined more data then Instagram, then Facebook is more "expensive" to use than Instagram and vice versa. Competition between the two networks would increase supply and reduce the cost of data required to use either network.
By acquiring Instagram and merging social network graphs (inputs to the model), Facebook effectively remove that dynamic, which gives them monopoly power to keep mining more and more data for marginal or perhaps zero benefit (an increase in costs).
Whether that dynamic would actually play out between users in a world where they are competing networks remains to be seen. Maybe it doesn't and for any network its a race to the bottom in terms of privacy regardless of the number of players.
> But consider the alternative. FB are blocked from buying IG, so IG need to set up a sales team, an adevertising method and epxand globally. None of these things are cheap or trivial. There does exist a world where IG competes on a level-playing field independently, but I would argue that at least 80% of the time, this hypothetical leads to IG either under-performing or flaming out.
Both of these outcomes are speculative, but I'm not convinced about the 80% figure. I'm not sure that IG needed FB alone to get to a billion users. Many of those users aren't necessarily people and are companies, organizations and other entities which use IG for engagement. It's enough that people spend more time on IG than FB the app or website to convince those entities to engage on IG. Not sure what the proportions are exactly but just giving an example.
Anyway, good points you've made and I've learned something so I'm willing to call it a day. I wrote this last essay simply because many of the points you made were simply too dismissive of what I said, without substantiation. Of course I'm not claiming to be right about how regulators will approach their argument, just stating a viewpoint on how FB is able to increase costs for the user, in terms of privacy, while being able to get away with it.
> Additionally, if (hypothetically) one chooses to make advertising-supported websites illegal, then that leads to FB (and Google) shutting down, which I don't see as a net positive for the world. (Certainly most of their users wouldn't think so).
Not sure why you brought up the prospects of advertising-supported websites being illegal. The purpose of regulation is to control abuse. GDPR in the EU does not making advertising illegal, but rather places limits on what information can be used. In the same way that road rules don't make driving illegal.
> > But consider the alternative. FB are blocked from buying IG, so IG need to set up a sales team, an adevertising method and epxand globally. None of these things are cheap or trivial. There does exist a world where IG competes on a level-playing field independently, but I would argue that at least 80% of the time, this hypothetical leads to IG either under-performing or flaming out.
Both of these outcomes are speculative, but I'm not convinced about the 80% figure. I'm not sure that IG needed FB alone to get to a billion users. Many of those users aren't necessarily people and are companies, organizations and other entities which use IG for engagement. It's enough that people spend more time on IG than FB the app or website to convince those entities to engage on IG. Not sure what the proportions are exactly but just giving an example.
IG had less than 20mn users when acquired, literally nobody cared about it outside of the early-adopter crowd in SF. In general, value comes from execution rather than the idea, and I am definitely not convinced that IG would be anywhere near where it is today without Facebook, which leads me to believe that breaking it off at this point is pretty unfair.
Like, another way FB could have competed would have been to buy IG and let it die slowly. Given this anti-trust suit, that would appear to have been the smarter move, but it definitely wouldn't be overall better.
Lets also note that FB became popular not just because it was good, but because it was good and always stayed up, regardless of user growth. That has probably been one of the major engines for IG growth.
Finally, the success of IG was also driven by the use of free advertising on FB, without that it would have taken a lot longer (and cost a lot more money) for them to reach the scale that they have now.
Again, thanks for replying. I'm still not convinced by your model of the cost of IG/FB, but I appreciate that it's reasonably well thought out.
Both of these outcomes are speculative, but I'm not convinced about the 80% figure. I'm not sure that IG needed FB alone to get to a billion users. Many of those users aren't necessarily people and are companies, organizations and other entities which use IG for engagement. It's enough that people spend more time on IG than FB the app or website to convince those entities to engage on IG. Not sure what the proportions are exactly but just giving an example.
IG had less than 20mn users when acquired, literally nobody cared about it outside of the early-adopter crowd in SF. In general, value comes from execution rather than the idea, and I am definitely not convinced that IG would be anywhere near where it is today without Facebook, which leads me to believe that breaking it off at this point is pretty unfair.
Like, another way FB could have competed would have been to buy IG and let it die slowly. Given this anti-trust suit, that would appear to have been the smarter move, but it definitely wouldn't be overall better.
Lets also note that FB became popular not just because it was good, but because it was good and always stayed up, regardless of user growth. That has probably been one of the major engines for IG growth.
Finally, the success of IG was also driven by the use of free advertising on FB, without that it would have taken a lot longer (and cost a lot more money) for them to reach the scale that they have now.
Again, thanks for replying. I'm still not convinced by your model of the cost of IG/FB, but I appreciate that it's reasonably well thought out.
I don’t think Google’s being ignored, they got served just a couple of months ago literally Re: their ad network monopoly
The FTC cleared FB to buy Instagram in the first place[1]. Any idea what changed?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-instagram-idUSBR...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-instagram-idUSBR...
They realized they were wrong and there’s a growing antitrust movement in the US.
Is there precedent for such a thing? Five or ten years after approving acquisitions and then saying 'oh our bad, that was anticompetitive' I'm not a fan of FB, was only a user briefly (though still maintain whatsapp) but find that this action is a misquided attempt to punish FB because some people can't accept its success and find the platform abhorrent.
"The lawsuit is about Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram effectively roping in users from other platforms into their advertising ecosystem"
I don't use Instagram and have used Whatsapp prior to FB acquiring it. There has been no "roping in" of any sort that I have noticed, and while my experience is clearly anecdotal, there doesn't seem to be anything to link to that that I've observed. Perhaps I'm naive, but it would be good to see something concrete in this regard.
"The monetisation of your data in exchange for adverts can be seen as the cost of the platforms. By aggressively increasing advertising on Instagram and attempting to take steps to monetize WhatsApp, Facebook are raising prices. As far as I understand the question is whether it is their abuse of monopoly power that allows them to do this."
I guess I would call that profit-making, not "aggressive monetization". The alternatives exist and they are all easily accessible. Put yourself in their shoes - would you run a non-profitable enterprise? At what cost? Let's not lose touch with the fact that this is still a capitalistic economy.
I don't use Instagram and have used Whatsapp prior to FB acquiring it. There has been no "roping in" of any sort that I have noticed, and while my experience is clearly anecdotal, there doesn't seem to be anything to link to that that I've observed. Perhaps I'm naive, but it would be good to see something concrete in this regard.
"The monetisation of your data in exchange for adverts can be seen as the cost of the platforms. By aggressively increasing advertising on Instagram and attempting to take steps to monetize WhatsApp, Facebook are raising prices. As far as I understand the question is whether it is their abuse of monopoly power that allows them to do this."
I guess I would call that profit-making, not "aggressive monetization". The alternatives exist and they are all easily accessible. Put yourself in their shoes - would you run a non-profitable enterprise? At what cost? Let's not lose touch with the fact that this is still a capitalistic economy.
> Does FB unreasonably restrain competition? (My answer is no)
The lawsuit specifically cites Zuckerberg talking about acquisitions (in this case, the failed Twitter acquisition) as giving "extra time... to get our product in order without having to worry about a competitor growing".
The lawsuit specifically cites Zuckerberg talking about acquisitions (in this case, the failed Twitter acquisition) as giving "extra time... to get our product in order without having to worry about a competitor growing".
This is anecdotal but I started using TikTok during the pandemic and it has greatly reduced my use of Facebook. Mindlessly scrolling the TikTok ForYouPage is noticably superior to scrolling the Facebook feed
The revenue generating customers of Facebook are not the social network's users.
This is a constant misconception in these discussions but antitrust litigation and penalties don't require there to be a monopoly.
The allegation here is anti-competitive behavior. There are plenty of things you an do that are anti-competitive and illegal without actually achieving a monopoly. The classic example is price fixing but there are many others.
Unsurprisingly, the actual linked article in this thread spells out these allegations of anti-competitive actions on Facebook's part.
The allegation here is anti-competitive behavior. There are plenty of things you an do that are anti-competitive and illegal without actually achieving a monopoly. The classic example is price fixing but there are many others.
Unsurprisingly, the actual linked article in this thread spells out these allegations of anti-competitive actions on Facebook's part.
A monopoly over your personal relationships, I suppose.
Twitter, TikTok, and HN all thrive on strangers communicating with each other.
Twitter, TikTok, and HN all thrive on strangers communicating with each other.
I'll give an easy example: Requiring users to have a Facebook account to use their Oculus device.
Having a Facebook account is a symbolic/emotional injury to a tech contrarian, but I don’t see the courts particularly caring about that. It’s not like you have to actually spend any time or money on it.
Is that actually a criteria in antitrust?
Antitrust could care if other social networks were unfairly disadvantaged because everyone was using the Facebook account that came with their Oculus.
Having an entry in Facebook’s users table is a long way from using Facebook for your social networking to the exclusion of competitors.
Having an entry in Facebook’s users table is a long way from using Facebook for your social networking to the exclusion of competitors.
> Monopoly of what?
"Social advertising".
https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1336762362821443585
"Social advertising".
https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1336762362821443585
Maybe it's to do with social network advertising? (https://marketingland.com/almost-70-of-digital-ad-spending-g...)
I have no knowledge in this area, so just throwing it out there for more informed minds to fill in the blanks.
I have no knowledge in this area, so just throwing it out there for more informed minds to fill in the blanks.
WhatsApp is a social network because it has stories.
From the article, the claim is:
> illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly
"Monopoly" is a term that's fairly overloaded/misunderstood; while in economics refers specifically to a situation where there is a single supplier for a good/service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Market_structures), in the legal definition "monopoly power" is defined much more loosely, as "the power to control prices or exclude competition" in the US (e.g. https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...), and there are complex tests for monopoly power in the EU including >50% market share which I'm less familiar with.
I think common discourse tends to interpret monopoly in the economics sense, which leads to confusion when we look at antitrust enforcement like this. Not to mention that under antitrust laws you don't even need to have (loosely defined) "monopoly power" to be engaging in illegal anticompetitive behaviors.
Specifically analyzing those competitors:
LinkedIn is a business social network, not a personal social network as they define it. Forums are not "social networks" as commonly defined (graph of relationships).
Twitter is a competitor, but they have far less market share, e.g. see https://www.t4.ai/industry/social-media-market-share#:~:text... which puts Facebook at 69% of social media users, (a monopoly in most definitions), while twitter is at ~8%. Somewhat confounding because users can be on both, but the magnitudes are what's important.
TikTok is a valid competitor too, but again they don't have nearly as dominant a position as Facebook <25% of FB's MAU according to https://datareportal.com/social-media-users?rq=tiktok.
I think Ben Thompson has the best analysis of antitrust as it pertains to Facebook, as he deeply understands the market dynamics that give Facebook and other large tech companies their market power, e.g. see https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/.
> illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly
"Monopoly" is a term that's fairly overloaded/misunderstood; while in economics refers specifically to a situation where there is a single supplier for a good/service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Market_structures), in the legal definition "monopoly power" is defined much more loosely, as "the power to control prices or exclude competition" in the US (e.g. https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...), and there are complex tests for monopoly power in the EU including >50% market share which I'm less familiar with.
I think common discourse tends to interpret monopoly in the economics sense, which leads to confusion when we look at antitrust enforcement like this. Not to mention that under antitrust laws you don't even need to have (loosely defined) "monopoly power" to be engaging in illegal anticompetitive behaviors.
Specifically analyzing those competitors:
LinkedIn is a business social network, not a personal social network as they define it. Forums are not "social networks" as commonly defined (graph of relationships).
Twitter is a competitor, but they have far less market share, e.g. see https://www.t4.ai/industry/social-media-market-share#:~:text... which puts Facebook at 69% of social media users, (a monopoly in most definitions), while twitter is at ~8%. Somewhat confounding because users can be on both, but the magnitudes are what's important.
TikTok is a valid competitor too, but again they don't have nearly as dominant a position as Facebook <25% of FB's MAU according to https://datareportal.com/social-media-users?rq=tiktok.
I think Ben Thompson has the best analysis of antitrust as it pertains to Facebook, as he deeply understands the market dynamics that give Facebook and other large tech companies their market power, e.g. see https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/.
Likely just posturing and games. Looking at the share price, the market is not concerned. This is not at all like the DOJ suing MSFT in 1998. Likely FB will settle or it will be forgotten or overturned by incoming Biden admiration.
Forgotten?
Not a lawyer, but I'm really curious to see how this plays out. This case has a lot of confounding factors:
* other companies/entities that can be considered "competitors" (Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc)
* the acquisitions in question (Instagram and WhatsApp) being approved by the suing entity (namely, the FTC) themselves back in the day
I wouldn't be surprised if an outcome of this were to be say, limits against cross-linking acquisitions together or the like in the future. However, having existing companies be forced to be spun out in their entirely... I have a hard time imagining that being the outcome, given the chilling effect it could have on the rest of the industry.
* other companies/entities that can be considered "competitors" (Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc)
* the acquisitions in question (Instagram and WhatsApp) being approved by the suing entity (namely, the FTC) themselves back in the day
I wouldn't be surprised if an outcome of this were to be say, limits against cross-linking acquisitions together or the like in the future. However, having existing companies be forced to be spun out in their entirely... I have a hard time imagining that being the outcome, given the chilling effect it could have on the rest of the industry.
> However, having existing companies be forced to be spun out in their entirely... I have a hard time imagining that being the outcome, given the chilling effect it could have on the rest of the industry.
What's hilarious is that breakups and divestiture were considered a completely commonplace occurrence up until a generation ago. It was just a matter of course for the FTC and DOJ to deal with companies that had gotten too big or were engaging in questionable behavior and forcing them to break up into pieces.
This, of course, was generally a good thing. Then we just sort of stopped. Now we're at a point where your point of view, which is that this is "hard to imagine" is a completely reasonable one.
It shouldn't be though. The current situation of consolidation at the top of our economy is wildly unstable and harmful to workers, consumers, and fledgeling entrepreneurs alike, and we should never have let it get this out of control.
What's hilarious is that breakups and divestiture were considered a completely commonplace occurrence up until a generation ago. It was just a matter of course for the FTC and DOJ to deal with companies that had gotten too big or were engaging in questionable behavior and forcing them to break up into pieces.
This, of course, was generally a good thing. Then we just sort of stopped. Now we're at a point where your point of view, which is that this is "hard to imagine" is a completely reasonable one.
It shouldn't be though. The current situation of consolidation at the top of our economy is wildly unstable and harmful to workers, consumers, and fledgeling entrepreneurs alike, and we should never have let it get this out of control.
This is the thing I have a hard time understanding, as far as I'm aware the FTC approved all this, these were not forceful takeovers.
What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration?
What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration?
> What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration?
That's like someone is approved for a license to own a gun, then that person uses the gun to commit a crime, and then their license is revoked. Then someone points the finger at whoever it was that approved that person for a gun license.
What would be the precedent if a merger approval gave you a free pass to be anti-competitive?
That's like someone is approved for a license to own a gun, then that person uses the gun to commit a crime, and then their license is revoked. Then someone points the finger at whoever it was that approved that person for a gun license.
What would be the precedent if a merger approval gave you a free pass to be anti-competitive?
I suppose the question then becomes "should the things that FB did with WhatsApp and Instagram since acquiring them be considered a crime"?
I could see eyebrows being raised around interop work, but I'm not sure about the rest.
I could see eyebrows being raised around interop work, but I'm not sure about the rest.
The FTC is an executive agency with the enforcement equivalent of prosecutorial discretion. It's not a court.
I'm also not a lawyer, but this sounds unconstitutional. This lawsuit sounds even more extreme than ex post facto laws, since antitrust laws haven't changed.
My pet theory is that the legislature is so divided and incompetent that laws are horribly outdated. The other two branches of government need to compensate. Google v. Oracle is another example of this.
My pet theory is that the legislature is so divided and incompetent that laws are horribly outdated. The other two branches of government need to compensate. Google v. Oracle is another example of this.
Unconstitutional? How?
Article 1, §9 specifically forbids the Congress from passing any ex post facto laws, and §10. does the same for the states. Since the FTC already gave consent the first time around, this hinges on whether the FTC as an independent agency is considered a proxy for Congress. Note that the attorney generals' separate suit does not have this concern.
Not a lawyer question:
Does that prevent Congress from passing laws criminalizing ongoing behavior by corporations, or just from prosecuting acts from before the law was passed?
Does that prevent Congress from passing laws criminalizing ongoing behavior by corporations, or just from prosecuting acts from before the law was passed?
Not a lawyer answer: the latter. Note, though, that a law criminalizing behavior specific to one person or corporation could be considered a bill of attainder, which is prohibited by the same clauses in the constitution.
You bring up an interesting point, but the Sherman and Clayton laws were passed over a century ago. Perhaps the FTC went against the will of Congress by approving them in the first place, which brings up its own questions around administration of the laws by the executive branch.
This doesn't make sense who authorized Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions at the first place? FTC [1]
It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is.... I look at you MySpace and Twitter.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c...
"The Federal Trade Commission has closed its nonpublic investigation of Facebook's proposed acquisition of Instagram, Inc., without taking any action. Accordingly, the deal may now proceed as proposed."
"The Commission vote to close the investigation was 5-0."
It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is.... I look at you MySpace and Twitter.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-c...
"The Federal Trade Commission has closed its nonpublic investigation of Facebook's proposed acquisition of Instagram, Inc., without taking any action. Accordingly, the deal may now proceed as proposed."
"The Commission vote to close the investigation was 5-0."
For perspective, the acquisition was before IG had ads and before Facebook was publicly traded. How was the FTC supposed to magically see the future anti-competitive actions (like blocking vine)?
That same perspective shows that the industry has evolved since then. If FTC can't be held accountable for not predicting the future neither can Facebook. Of course, I don't believe this at all since anyone in the industry knew exactly why Facebook would buy Instagram, especially the FTC.
> If FTC can't be held accountable for not predicting the future neither can Facebook.
Something tells me the FTC isn’t going to be amenable to “gotcha” arguments
Something tells me the FTC isn’t going to be amenable to “gotcha” arguments
Are we not holding the government to a higher standard than private companies now or what? The FTC's entire job is to do these types of analyses. It's unfortunate that we're so used to the government being dismally incompetent in every way.
> It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is
FTC seems to be arguing that at least part of the reason why that is the case was the employment of illegal tactics by Facebook.
FTC seems to be arguing that at least part of the reason why that is the case was the employment of illegal tactics by Facebook.
"It isn't Zuck's fault nobody else is as competitive as Facebook is.... I look at you MySpace and Twitter."
Social Networks have natural Monopolies.
Not that I believe FB is necessarily a monopoly in the economic sense, but it's not quite right to talk about 'competition' in systems that are designed to have one winner.
If there were 5 Twitters for example, one of them would eventually dominate, one way or another.
Social Networks have natural Monopolies.
Not that I believe FB is necessarily a monopoly in the economic sense, but it's not quite right to talk about 'competition' in systems that are designed to have one winner.
If there were 5 Twitters for example, one of them would eventually dominate, one way or another.
IANAL, but my understanding is legally, they can decide not to sue/block it. This is not the same thing as affirmatively approving it.
I thought new evidence came to light that FB used illegally obtained metrics about IG and Whatsapp that allowed them inside information about the accusations.
Something about the FB mobile app siphoning off mobile data about other app usage
Something about the FB mobile app siphoning off mobile data about other app usage
Does one mistake demand another?
lol there's no mens rea
> ... Facebook has maintained its monopoly position by buying up companies that present competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals that Facebook does not or cannot acquire
Imagine if FB was broken up like old school monopolies. That would definitely open field to a lot of smaller social media startups. I am worried about consumer privacy impacts because it is easier to regulate one giant company than a myriad of smaller ones. Regardless, I say let's do it because monopolies and data stewardship are two separate problems and historically monopoly breakdowns did great things for innovation.
Imagine if FB was broken up like old school monopolies. That would definitely open field to a lot of smaller social media startups. I am worried about consumer privacy impacts because it is easier to regulate one giant company than a myriad of smaller ones. Regardless, I say let's do it because monopolies and data stewardship are two separate problems and historically monopoly breakdowns did great things for innovation.
I actually disagree. Regulating a single giant company becomes an exercise in compliance, which American governments are absolutely terrible at. The single giant company has the resources to fight any action that could existentially threaten it. This winds up in its' own set of abuses.
In a robust market of smaller players the regulatory agencies can stick to rulemaking, investigation, and enforcement (civil fines/prosecutions), which is what they are great at. Smaller players don't have the resources to compete with the government and force them into regulatory trench warfare.
This is similar to the situation with the IRS — they spend most of their time auditing EITC cases, and other issues related to poor and middle class people. They don't have the resources to collect on the billionaires who have enough power to fight the government to attrition.
In a robust market of smaller players the regulatory agencies can stick to rulemaking, investigation, and enforcement (civil fines/prosecutions), which is what they are great at. Smaller players don't have the resources to compete with the government and force them into regulatory trench warfare.
This is similar to the situation with the IRS — they spend most of their time auditing EITC cases, and other issues related to poor and middle class people. They don't have the resources to collect on the billionaires who have enough power to fight the government to attrition.
> ... easier to regulate one giant company than a myriad of smaller ones
This sounds... incorrect.
Small players are much more vulnerable to fines and other penalties which range from 'cost of doing business' to 'slap on the wrist' for the big guys. And small ones don't seem to have much in the way of lobbying power or other direct influence over regulators.
Maybe more accurate to say that it's a bit harder to police lots of small players, but also that it's only the small players who produce good behaviour under regulation.
This sounds... incorrect.
Small players are much more vulnerable to fines and other penalties which range from 'cost of doing business' to 'slap on the wrist' for the big guys. And small ones don't seem to have much in the way of lobbying power or other direct influence over regulators.
Maybe more accurate to say that it's a bit harder to police lots of small players, but also that it's only the small players who produce good behaviour under regulation.
I could get behind this if the current ones actually followed regulation. FB are so entrenched that they don't have to follow the rules as they've demonstrated with Cambridge Analytica among a myriad of other issues with their platform.
what if one of them used privacy as a selling point?
I can't help but step back and look at the trade wars between the US and China. China is gaining ground fast. US on the otherhand is turning to infighting by suing FB, Google and Amazon.
Countries win through innovation. It's hard to innovate with such distractions. China must be happy cheering on its tech companies while the US is on the sidelines. Go figure...
Countries win through innovation. It's hard to innovate with such distractions. China must be happy cheering on its tech companies while the US is on the sidelines. Go figure...
Arguably by breaking up big tech companies, there will be more space for innovation, especially for startups.
or we could just make it much easier for people to break off and start their own business
The problem is if you try to monetize it, facebook or google will overnight release a 10x better version for free.
if you water down restrictions like noncompetes it won't matter, the people at fb or goog would just as likely start their own
The people at google or facebook don't poses some secret talent that the rest of us do not. Most senior developers could have built what facebook and google release given enough time and money.
The problem is that you simply can not keep up with 100 developers working full time building the same product as you but giving it out for free.
The problem is that you simply can not keep up with 100 developers working full time building the same product as you but giving it out for free.
There's no reason why individual developers would have to compete on their own and cutting down on the immense amounts of red tape one needs to navigate to operate across friendly borders like ca/us/aus/uk/nz or even between states would go a long way to leveling the playing field.
I'd go as far as saying the first 5k of self employed income per year should not be subject to any filing/registration requirements and what registration/regulatory fees and paperwork should be exactly zero for companies with <100 people and <10m in annual revenue. Corporate income taxes too should be no more than 1-2% until >>100 employees and >> 10m annual revenue.
If we want small businesses to thrive and compete with big businesses we need to make it as frictionless as possible.
I'd go as far as saying the first 5k of self employed income per year should not be subject to any filing/registration requirements and what registration/regulatory fees and paperwork should be exactly zero for companies with <100 people and <10m in annual revenue. Corporate income taxes too should be no more than 1-2% until >>100 employees and >> 10m annual revenue.
If we want small businesses to thrive and compete with big businesses we need to make it as frictionless as possible.
Unless it harms consumers, that is not an anti-trust issue
Monopoly = Lack of innovations. Isn’t Facebook the proof of that? What did Zuckerberg do since IPO? He bought a bunch of toys on shareholders’ dime. Including VR and crypto that was DOA. That said China will never catch up and it has everything to do with their political system.
[deleted]
Innovation often arises precisely from turbulence and uncertainty.
On the other hand, it’s not unreasonable to believe that monopolies stifle innovation. Although Peter Thiel claims the opposite:
“Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of.”
Is he right? Looking at FB and Google, I don’t see much innovation on their core products: search and social.
Google’s autocomplete has improved, but in my anecdotal experience the search results have gotten worse. Certainly the UX is the same. Surely there are ways improve on a single list of results beyond a sidebar of knowledge graph information for known entities?
With FB, for all their efforts to tune my feed, I still see the same uninteresting content, even if I do occasionally snooze a “friend” for one too many dank memes. If anything, I see less relevant and compelling posts on my feed than ever before.
And yet I do love what I see from Google and Facebook in their ML research, and Thiel seems right that the massive resources put into those long-term projects only come from monopoly profits.
So it isn’t that a monopoly isn’t innovating, it’s just that they aren’t innovating on the value that is provided to their users. They are innovating on what can make them more money. With having conquered their markets and bought or bullied their competitors, they no longer have to make users happier with a significantly better core product. Instead, making more money requires innovating on their monetization products, or on side-products.
As a monopoly, the biggest risk is taking risks with their core product. But risk is where innovation happens. You might argue that their side-products carry risk, but what risk is there to well-paid well-funded workers on a subsidized side-product whose liquidity depends more on executives’ happiness than users’ happiness? What happens when you are making what capitalists want instead of what users want? If you’re a startup founder with meddling investors, you know what I’m talking about.
So although Thiel’s advice to aim for being a monopoly is relevant for creating a successful startup (in a tautological way), his arguments that monopolies are engines of innovation aren’t convincing.
“Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of.”
Is he right? Looking at FB and Google, I don’t see much innovation on their core products: search and social.
Google’s autocomplete has improved, but in my anecdotal experience the search results have gotten worse. Certainly the UX is the same. Surely there are ways improve on a single list of results beyond a sidebar of knowledge graph information for known entities?
With FB, for all their efforts to tune my feed, I still see the same uninteresting content, even if I do occasionally snooze a “friend” for one too many dank memes. If anything, I see less relevant and compelling posts on my feed than ever before.
And yet I do love what I see from Google and Facebook in their ML research, and Thiel seems right that the massive resources put into those long-term projects only come from monopoly profits.
So it isn’t that a monopoly isn’t innovating, it’s just that they aren’t innovating on the value that is provided to their users. They are innovating on what can make them more money. With having conquered their markets and bought or bullied their competitors, they no longer have to make users happier with a significantly better core product. Instead, making more money requires innovating on their monetization products, or on side-products.
As a monopoly, the biggest risk is taking risks with their core product. But risk is where innovation happens. You might argue that their side-products carry risk, but what risk is there to well-paid well-funded workers on a subsidized side-product whose liquidity depends more on executives’ happiness than users’ happiness? What happens when you are making what capitalists want instead of what users want? If you’re a startup founder with meddling investors, you know what I’m talking about.
So although Thiel’s advice to aim for being a monopoly is relevant for creating a successful startup (in a tautological way), his arguments that monopolies are engines of innovation aren’t convincing.
I don't buy this for a fucking second.
You don't "cheer on" the fucking global market leader. You force them to allow 3rd parties to leverage their platform for innovative, derivative products.
Facebook has been extremely hostile to any sort of 3rd party integration with their products. Break that shit up.
You don't "cheer on" the fucking global market leader. You force them to allow 3rd parties to leverage their platform for innovative, derivative products.
Facebook has been extremely hostile to any sort of 3rd party integration with their products. Break that shit up.
Facebook goes beyond the US jurisdiction. Only 10% of their users are in the US. How do you split up a company beyond your borders?
Really sounds to me lawyers will be at it for very long with no sure outcome.
Really sounds to me lawyers will be at it for very long with no sure outcome.
I'm kind of confused by this. When Facebook acquired WhatsApp didn't it have to get government approval? For example here [1] is an article from Reuters.
It seems like "corporate entrapment" to approve a deal and then later sue the company for going through with the deal that you approved. For what it's worth, I'm not fan of Facebook (I'm not employed, don't directly own their stock, and in general do use Facebook products) but this seems kind of absurd to me.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-whatsapp/faceboo...
It seems like "corporate entrapment" to approve a deal and then later sue the company for going through with the deal that you approved. For what it's worth, I'm not fan of Facebook (I'm not employed, don't directly own their stock, and in general do use Facebook products) but this seems kind of absurd to me.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-whatsapp/faceboo...
Facebook has been preparing for this for years:
- cross-app communication between Messenger and Instagram
- Messenger API enabling business communication on Instagram
- ad management for Instagram and Facebook through a centralized platform
- WhatsApp business accounts linking to Facebook accounts
- Facebook shopping in-app in WhatsApp
These are all small and there are many more examples, but an overarching theme is to integrate FB's products as much as possible. It's not only to increase adoption and revenue, but also to make them appear inseparable.
- cross-app communication between Messenger and Instagram
- Messenger API enabling business communication on Instagram
- ad management for Instagram and Facebook through a centralized platform
- WhatsApp business accounts linking to Facebook accounts
- Facebook shopping in-app in WhatsApp
These are all small and there are many more examples, but an overarching theme is to integrate FB's products as much as possible. It's not only to increase adoption and revenue, but also to make them appear inseparable.
They’d a lot of glue, but not much is inseparable. Messenger tying to Instagram, for example, was entirely tactical. A dozen people might miss that feature.
same business case as Internet Explorer being inseparable part of Windows 95 Kernel thus they HAD to be bundled together...
I'm sure stuff like these sounded fine in decision maker heads...
I'm sure stuff like these sounded fine in decision maker heads...
> The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
On one hand, forcing Facebook to open up its social graph would have serious privacy implications.
On the other, it would provide an incredible boost to any new social network, which could quickly bootstrap off your existing friends. That's what Instagram did with Twitter and what Vine did with Facebook.
The most important feature of a social network has always been whether your friends/family use it. If any new social network can take advantage of Facebook's social graph via API, that neutralizes this advantage. Now Facebook is forced to compete by being a better social network, not just a bigger one.
On one hand, forcing Facebook to open up its social graph would have serious privacy implications.
On the other, it would provide an incredible boost to any new social network, which could quickly bootstrap off your existing friends. That's what Instagram did with Twitter and what Vine did with Facebook.
The most important feature of a social network has always been whether your friends/family use it. If any new social network can take advantage of Facebook's social graph via API, that neutralizes this advantage. Now Facebook is forced to compete by being a better social network, not just a bigger one.
> On one hand, forcing Facebook to open up its social graph would have serious privacy implications.
There shouldn't be much additional privacy concern with a Facebook user saying "I trust user Alice and service example.com, so please send all my posts to [email protected] using ActivityPub."
Similarly, Alice should be able to tell example.com that she trusts the Facebook user Bob with ID 123456789, so that example.com sends her posts to Facebook addressed to Bob (perhaps authenticated with a pre-shared key that Bob emailed her).
Once users are free to move between providers, those providers can compete based on their level of privacy and security, which right now Facebook has little incentive to improve.
There shouldn't be much additional privacy concern with a Facebook user saying "I trust user Alice and service example.com, so please send all my posts to [email protected] using ActivityPub."
Similarly, Alice should be able to tell example.com that she trusts the Facebook user Bob with ID 123456789, so that example.com sends her posts to Facebook addressed to Bob (perhaps authenticated with a pre-shared key that Bob emailed her).
Once users are free to move between providers, those providers can compete based on their level of privacy and security, which right now Facebook has little incentive to improve.
I'd agree with you in theory, but in practice, those API endpoints end up being exploit vectors for data leakage in various ways - either through actual security vulns or through the security vulnerability that exists between the monitor and the chair.
They tried this and had to stop after “I trust Cambridge Analytica, so please send my data there”...
It's worth noting that part of Facebook's culpability regarding Cambridge Analytica is that the CA "personality survey" was able to gather "personally identifiable information such as real name, location and contact details" of participating users, and also "the app did the same thing for all the friends of the user who installed it".[0]
I suppose that a lot of personal data could be gleaned about someone (and their friends) from a rogue ActivityPub node reading the posts that were federated with it, but people would be suspicious if, for example, Mastodon suddenly started asking users for their phone number, Social Security number, and a picture of their driver's license.[1] And people would be very unlikely to sign up to a node which was actually run by Cambridge Analytica, right?[2]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analy...
[1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/parler-is-not-the...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201116/01141545710/what-...
I suppose that a lot of personal data could be gleaned about someone (and their friends) from a rogue ActivityPub node reading the posts that were federated with it, but people would be suspicious if, for example, Mastodon suddenly started asking users for their phone number, Social Security number, and a picture of their driver's license.[1] And people would be very unlikely to sign up to a node which was actually run by Cambridge Analytica, right?[2]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analy...
[1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/parler-is-not-the...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201116/01141545710/what-...
Parler asked people for their SSNs, and Cambridge Analytica wasn't a household byword for invasion of privacy when people were clicking on quizzes.
So, it's worth considering that people might indeed happily sign up for a rogue node that steals their info without knowing what's going on.
So, it's worth considering that people might indeed happily sign up for a rogue node that steals their info without knowing what's going on.
Opening up the social graph seems almost exclusively a privacy concern. The examples you bring up between Instagram / Twitter are primarily about marketing and onboarding new users to competing services. This isn't actually going to lead to much user conversion unless the competing service is actually meaningfully more interesting. If it is meaningfully more interesting, then users will share it on their own (see Tik Tok), rather demonstrating that regulating the social graph is completely pointless.
Not sure if I am the only one feeling this way, but I hope for the death of facebook (at least in its current form). I feel they are a net negative for society and have done enough shady things to deserve that tag. Disinformation, election hacking, free basics (aka attempted non net neutral free internet in India) marketing it as a service to humanity. Zuck is undeniably smart but has failed time and time again to make the moral right decisions, right from the start of facebook.
1) FB is not negative for society. It's just a social network. Most people use it because they like it.
2) It's not good when governments swoop in and shut down / mess around with private business in general.
Of all the things the Feds could be doing, putting in privacy protections, Net Neutrality, protecting from scams would be much higher on this list.
2) It's not good when governments swoop in and shut down / mess around with private business in general.
Of all the things the Feds could be doing, putting in privacy protections, Net Neutrality, protecting from scams would be much higher on this list.
Both of these statements are highly contentious, and I strongly disagree with both of them in this case.
Everything that follows is my opinion, as these are clearly questions without objective answers.
Facebook has become a massive force for division and the propagation of hate rhetoric. A lot of that comes from their own algorithms which basically create a catered stream of content to reinforce user's already held beliefs. This is not a FB specific issue, but they are probably the largest offender. I would argue they have been an absolutely massive negative for society.
I a vacuum you'd want private business left alone, but corporate power in America has reached absurd levels, and we desperately need the government to step in and do something. Long gone is the point at which labor organization could function as a counterweight to corporate power (in no small part because of the government going after it, but it doesn't really matter why). The insane consolidation of the economy has been a huge driving force for wage deflation, stagnation of productivity, and wealth inequality.
Everything that follows is my opinion, as these are clearly questions without objective answers.
Facebook has become a massive force for division and the propagation of hate rhetoric. A lot of that comes from their own algorithms which basically create a catered stream of content to reinforce user's already held beliefs. This is not a FB specific issue, but they are probably the largest offender. I would argue they have been an absolutely massive negative for society.
I a vacuum you'd want private business left alone, but corporate power in America has reached absurd levels, and we desperately need the government to step in and do something. Long gone is the point at which labor organization could function as a counterweight to corporate power (in no small part because of the government going after it, but it doesn't really matter why). The insane consolidation of the economy has been a huge driving force for wage deflation, stagnation of productivity, and wealth inequality.
[deleted]
Giving people free access to wikipedia is so evil that XKCD made a comic about it: https://xkcd.com/548/
Lets hope they push through with it and follow up with Google. Its about time - its ridiculous how incredibly powerful these institutions have become.
Question: is there an argument not to split up these gigantic corporations?
Question: is there an argument not to split up these gigantic corporations?
Yes, the argument is if you split them up their core value proposition is put into question. Apparently a very large group of users are on board with the core value proposition, and you are imposing on that group a ton of assumptions that the regulatory breakup and oversight will end up "working out better for everyone".
These companies are also vulnerable to competition in a fickle market. Tik Tok has gained massive ground and is on a similar trajectory that instagram was on some years ago. For everyone's claiming that FB stifles innovation, we have an obvious counterexample happening literally before our eyes.
These companies are also vulnerable to competition in a fickle market. Tik Tok has gained massive ground and is on a similar trajectory that instagram was on some years ago. For everyone's claiming that FB stifles innovation, we have an obvious counterexample happening literally before our eyes.
Argument for FB not being broken up would be “how does it harm the consumer?”. Sherman act doesn’t ban monopolies, it’s protects the consumer from being abused by the monopoly.
While they crush local competition, they also crush it in other countries. Google and Facebook/Whatsapp own a sizeable chunk of Internet interactions in just about every country except China, which in turns means more revenue which can be used to pay these insane Silicon Valley salaries to their workforce.
While I don't like these monopolistic practices, they have given the US a tremendous amount of power over communications abroad.
While I don't like these monopolistic practices, they have given the US a tremendous amount of power over communications abroad.
The way I see it, an important argument is that it won't solve the problem: these organizations take advantage of network effects to build monopolies and that mechanism won't go away. A good book on this is Who Owns The Future by Jaron Lanier.
Of course, forbidding anti-competitive acquisitions would have helped in that maybe then we'd all be using an independent Instagram under the leadership of its original founders and Facebook would be dying. But that still wouldn't change the fact that it would be more than likely to be a quasi monopoly. That's just the nature of social networks.
Of course, forbidding anti-competitive acquisitions would have helped in that maybe then we'd all be using an independent Instagram under the leadership of its original founders and Facebook would be dying. But that still wouldn't change the fact that it would be more than likely to be a quasi monopoly. That's just the nature of social networks.
Yes. I would imagine it revolves around demonstrating harm. Just because something is big doesn't necessitate a break up.
I support this, though have low expectations the divestiture will actually happen.
It would be quite the twist though if Kevin Systrom testified for the FTC against FB, though.
It would be quite the twist though if Kevin Systrom testified for the FTC against FB, though.
Why would it be a twist I thought Systrom is mad at Mark. I know what whatsapp guys don't like mark.
Facebook feels like a punching bag to me but not the company I am most concerned about from an anti-trust perspective. I am more concerned about the amount of market influence and power wrapped up in Google (Search and Ads), Microsoft (able to freely steal ideas like Slack and turn it into Teams by leveraging O365), Amazon (amassed capital letting them compete in any segment), Apple (acquiring companies and then over-verticalizing) etc. We need a revision of anti-trust law for the modern era, to encourage competition against these giant conglomerates.
I think there will be a lot of ancillary benefits from breaking up these organizations that should be welcome to all parts of the political spectrum. Distribution of market power means distribution of financial outcomes as well. It lowers barriers for others to challenge incumbents. It allows companies to decentralize from a few overly-powerful city-states. And so on.
I think there will be a lot of ancillary benefits from breaking up these organizations that should be welcome to all parts of the political spectrum. Distribution of market power means distribution of financial outcomes as well. It lowers barriers for others to challenge incumbents. It allows companies to decentralize from a few overly-powerful city-states. And so on.
In all of these threads on Apple, Google, Facebook and friends, its fascinating that the overall tone and position of technologists has changed over time from radical cyberpunk freedom to "monopolies aren't that bad really".
It's absolutely wild and hugely depressing to me that the prevailing tone favors the mega-corporations. The current over-consolidation is a disaster in every industry, and tech is no exception. Nearly every one of these organizations has proven to be a bad faith actor who cannot be effectively regulated. It's time to actually do something about it.
Because these aren't monopolies...
People are still advocating for radical freedom but can also happily support products and companies where users benefit
People are still advocating for radical freedom but can also happily support products and companies where users benefit
Would be interesting to see a modern day trust busting, wonder how deeply embedded Facebook's infrastructure / P&Ps is for Whatsapp development.
Unless they rewrote Whatsapp from ground up, the two platforms are not mixed. Whatsapp is written in Erlang where Facebook has transitioned from PHP to Hack to the best of my knowledge.
the code isn't the only infrastructure that can intermingle.
I think whatsapp runs on facebook's massive server farms with customized chips - which would hurt whatsapp probably if they need to find a different hosting.
I imagine there are probably a lot of other services that are shared or interact in some way - maybe shared email/notification services, 2fa services, data analytics/BI, monitoring etc...
I imagine there are probably a lot of other services that are shared or interact in some way - maybe shared email/notification services, 2fa services, data analytics/BI, monitoring etc...
I don't know how much they did with Whatsapp, but I do know they integrated the Facebook ad serving platform into Whatsapp. Breaking up Facebook and Whatsapp would cost Whatsapp that ad serving platform, which is probably nontrivial.
The nice thing about splitting a software company (unlike a company with physical assets) is that you can fork the assets.
Give both companies the ad platform source code.
Give both companies the ad platform source code.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817850
> Can someone please tell me how Instagram's actual content is worth anything? We're talking about photo-filtered cell phone camera shots here. Facebook doesn't need a user acquisition ploy. I guess maybe it's a move to keep users in Facebook, but I'd be willing to bet a million bucks that almost everyone is discovering Instagram content via Facebook or Twitter. Seems like mostly a huge waste of cash.
> Can someone please tell me how Instagram's actual content is worth anything? We're talking about photo-filtered cell phone camera shots here. Facebook doesn't need a user acquisition ploy. I guess maybe it's a move to keep users in Facebook, but I'd be willing to bet a million bucks that almost everyone is discovering Instagram content via Facebook or Twitter. Seems like mostly a huge waste of cash.
Funny. I'm not on Twitter and only discover Twitter content through Facebook.
Is it enough to have competing social networks to Facebook?
What's the point of competition, isn't it that if one product is bad, someone can make a better one so that people can use that one instead?
If I think Facebook is bad, can I use another product to communicate with people on Facebook?
The problem is that the network is the product.
If we want real competition we need to make sure that competing products can exist within the network.
Look at how email works.
That's the only way we can have real competition.
WhatsApp can just be considered as worldwide communications infrastructure. More important than text/calls. No way should all of that be in the control of one single (also cretinous) company.
Good luck on this one America. I have low expectations but high hopes.
Good luck on this one America. I have low expectations but high hopes.
How would splitting Instagram work from a technical perspective? Engineers have spent 8 years building shared code and data centers for FB and IG. I'd expect it would take hundreds of people and multiple years to untangle them.
The thing is, technically it's actually far more difficult to integrate than it is to separate.
Facebook has been trying to make it appear that integration will make separation impossible.
But the reality is, you simply duplicate the databases and whatever shared services they depend on, and create a "stub" FB backend for IG, and a "stub" IG backend for FB for the shared services to work... and they go on their merry independent ways, while engineers remove things that depend on the stubs at their leisure.
Obviously it's not trivial (and involves the inherent complexities of any datacenter migration), and doing it without downtime is a whole separate beast, but it's not impossible or so wildly difficult it can't be carried out. In other words, there's zero reason it should be a factor in the legal outcome.
At most, there would be an IP issue -- e.g. would the spun-out IG be permitted to have a stubbed FB backend, and vice-versa -- but that's easily solved by providing those permissions as part of the separation agreement, with a timeline to remove them (e.g. 2 years).
Facebook has been trying to make it appear that integration will make separation impossible.
But the reality is, you simply duplicate the databases and whatever shared services they depend on, and create a "stub" FB backend for IG, and a "stub" IG backend for FB for the shared services to work... and they go on their merry independent ways, while engineers remove things that depend on the stubs at their leisure.
Obviously it's not trivial (and involves the inherent complexities of any datacenter migration), and doing it without downtime is a whole separate beast, but it's not impossible or so wildly difficult it can't be carried out. In other words, there's zero reason it should be a factor in the legal outcome.
At most, there would be an IP issue -- e.g. would the spun-out IG be permitted to have a stubbed FB backend, and vice-versa -- but that's easily solved by providing those permissions as part of the separation agreement, with a timeline to remove them (e.g. 2 years).
As far as I know the biggest change was hosting the pictures on Facebook server infrastructure. So it requires copying the pictures to another infrastructure and replacing the URLs ? Of course it will be a huge task but I don't think that FB and IG are sharing a lot of code.
The biggest challenge would be the advertising. Moving photos is far easier.
Replicating and building out an ad platform like FBs from zero would be very very hard. None of the other social platforms ad networks are even close in quality but especially interface/targeting/features. Snap / TW I would say are at maybe 5% if I had to pick a number...
Especially especially taking into account integration with FB pixel.
Replicating and building out an ad platform like FBs from zero would be very very hard. None of the other social platforms ad networks are even close in quality but especially interface/targeting/features. Snap / TW I would say are at maybe 5% if I had to pick a number...
Especially especially taking into account integration with FB pixel.
Photo hosting might have been the biggest immediate change back in 2012, but since then there have been a lot of features added to IG that share a lot with FB. You've probably seen things like recommendations of people to follow in IG based on FB Pages that you've liked, etc. And video streaming infrastructure is shared, and that's much more complicated than photos.
I fail to see what the public benefit would be of breaking out Instagram and WhatsApp, or exposing the APIs more widely.
* Are customers lives improved by browsing lifestyle photos on Instagram^notFB ?
* WhatsApp makes voice and video calls. How does it affect me that it's part of FB? How is my life improved if its not? Another voice/video app will somehow thrive?
* Opening their APIs so that a couple of startups can build custom FB and Instagram apps? One of them will succeed and the rest will fail. This is the public benefit?
There's such a huge difference between this and Microsoft's anti-competitive case: Microsoft controlled your entire computer. When they restricted apps, they restricted your entire ability to operate your computer, connect to the internet, etc. Here, FB is constraining... your access to social data on FB??
* Are customers lives improved by browsing lifestyle photos on Instagram^notFB ?
* WhatsApp makes voice and video calls. How does it affect me that it's part of FB? How is my life improved if its not? Another voice/video app will somehow thrive?
* Opening their APIs so that a couple of startups can build custom FB and Instagram apps? One of them will succeed and the rest will fail. This is the public benefit?
There's such a huge difference between this and Microsoft's anti-competitive case: Microsoft controlled your entire computer. When they restricted apps, they restricted your entire ability to operate your computer, connect to the internet, etc. Here, FB is constraining... your access to social data on FB??
> WhatsApp makes voice and video calls. How does it affect me that it's part of FB? How is my life improved if its not? Another voice/video app will somehow thrive?
WhatsApp used to have strong guarantees against tracking (and ads) as long as they were independent.
They were wildly profitable and was my favorite messaging service until Facebook bought them.
Now I reluctantly use Telegram, but I'd much rather have something like WhatsApp back were I can pay real money for the service instead of paying with my metadata.
WhatsApp used to have strong guarantees against tracking (and ads) as long as they were independent.
They were wildly profitable and was my favorite messaging service until Facebook bought them.
Now I reluctantly use Telegram, but I'd much rather have something like WhatsApp back were I can pay real money for the service instead of paying with my metadata.
Please excuse my ignorance, but doesn't the FTC (or is it the SEC?) have to approve acquisitions? If so, why were the acquisitions approved in the first place?
When the same thing is going to happen to the Match group (Tinder, Okc, hinge, match,...)?
In their case this is 100% obvious that they buy any new dating app in order to keep their monopoly and the result is clearly bad for the users
In their case this is 100% obvious that they buy any new dating app in order to keep their monopoly and the result is clearly bad for the users
We need a really big ticket trust-bust to begin a new era of de-consolidation. Breaking up Match just isn't exciting enough right now.
It's lacking a political angle.
This is so misdirected...
We need transparency, not this.
How is there not some sort of regulation to allow me to opt-out or configure these algorithms that target me for ads of curated content?
It's my f*cking data!
We need transparency, not this.
How is there not some sort of regulation to allow me to opt-out or configure these algorithms that target me for ads of curated content?
It's my f*cking data!
I'm not trying to troll but the reaction to "It's my f*cking data!" should be to seriously look into projects like Urbit. Where you do in fact own and control your own data.
This is the most boneheaded move from the US government ever. This will hurt the US position on the Internet. It will also cause Silicon Valley salaries to go lower. Developers are getting paid high salaries because of Google and Facebook; any moves to split these companies into smaller companies will cause the salaries to drop, as smaller companies will not be able to pay the salaries Google and Facebook pay to its employees.
This will hurt the Valley.
This will hurt the Valley.
Without A think tank for how fb should be split, this suit won’t succeed in court for no reason other than impracticality.
Without sustaining rules there is nothing stopping another fb from coming in the future.
Without rules and without a master roadmap, I can’t see the judge agreeing to this. Like sun tzu said the battle is won before the first shot is fired. And this is a losing battle.
Here is what I think of an ideal future. Platforms need to be separated and service providers need to be separated.
They can be one company but separate management with no influence between each other.
Messaging platforms can be separate with interoperability. As long as management is separate.
Facebook properties are a combination of friend network, share portal, news aggregator portal, ad display, ad filter, messaging platforms, data analyzers. And more than I care to know.
This is too much power under one management.
By splitting platforms from service providers seeking customers on those platforms, and allowing customers to disconnect from those platforms and move to other platforms, a large fracking sound will be heard.
Without sustaining rules there is nothing stopping another fb from coming in the future.
Without rules and without a master roadmap, I can’t see the judge agreeing to this. Like sun tzu said the battle is won before the first shot is fired. And this is a losing battle.
Here is what I think of an ideal future. Platforms need to be separated and service providers need to be separated.
They can be one company but separate management with no influence between each other.
Messaging platforms can be separate with interoperability. As long as management is separate.
Facebook properties are a combination of friend network, share portal, news aggregator portal, ad display, ad filter, messaging platforms, data analyzers. And more than I care to know.
This is too much power under one management.
By splitting platforms from service providers seeking customers on those platforms, and allowing customers to disconnect from those platforms and move to other platforms, a large fracking sound will be heard.
Wow, this is huge. I just wonder how would it even work if Instagram was forced to separate?
So this means Facebook and Google were hit with lawsuits, when is Apple and Amazon next?
I can even understand the Google lawsuit, but can someone explain to me how is Facebook a monopoly? I find a bigger problem Apple than Facebook. It is Google and Apple that have a death grip on the mobile market...
So this means Facebook and Google were hit with lawsuits, when is Apple and Amazon next?
I can even understand the Google lawsuit, but can someone explain to me how is Facebook a monopoly? I find a bigger problem Apple than Facebook. It is Google and Apple that have a death grip on the mobile market...
I strongly believe that this is a result of Mark Zuckerberg just being strongly disliked, for reasons that seem entirely focused on his person ("Zuckerbot") and not his company's actions. I think the reason you see this coming down on Facebook and not Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. is just this intense anti-charisma that he has.
Instagram and WhatsApp are old news. The big chip on the board is Oculus. If they can get Facebook to sever Oculus (and Facebook "Reality Labs", something probably created ahead of this to blur the lines at bit) it would be a huge step forward to mitigate huge harms to come from Facebook.
doubt it. oculus alone will fade to obscurity
Seems unlikely to me unless you think your children are going to be using computers with flat screens on walls like we do today.
I happen to think the problems with VR are rooted in the laws of physics, or at least human physiology, rather than the limitations of hardware.
Can you trick my eyes into focusing on infinity when the actual focus point is three cm away? Maybe?
Can you trick my inner ear into accepting the virtual reality? Ok, how?
AR is a different story, but Oculus would be starting from zero on an AR play, the only company with a genuine head start is Apple.
Can you trick my eyes into focusing on infinity when the actual focus point is three cm away? Maybe?
Can you trick my inner ear into accepting the virtual reality? Ok, how?
AR is a different story, but Oculus would be starting from zero on an AR play, the only company with a genuine head start is Apple.
Uh not really, Oculus has been working on AR for years and has prototype glasses in the field. They're probably ahead of Apple if I had to guess. VR is the bootloader for AR.
100%. Don't believe in the cyberpunk AR/VR future.
VR isn't a thing, and won't be. Just like 3d TVs. Nobody outside of tech cares about it.
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.
I think you re talking about neuralink and the like
They said oculus would fade, not VR/AR in general.
[deleted]
What is your argument for Facebook being forced to sever Oculus?
The long promised and teased suit is finally out in the wild.
Interesting that it seems to focus so heavily on acquisitions.
Interesting that it seems to focus so heavily on acquisitions.
The most interesting part to developers: they may require facebook to offer certain APIs?
> The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
> The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
Making API's available "only on the condition that [developers] refrain from developing competing functionalities" is one thing; and I can see how that seems anticompetitive, I dont' know enough about the law to say when anticompetitive is illegal.
But that second one is more interesting. "shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook" -- they didn't just not have Vine have access to it, they removed it, and that is being complained about. The implication to me seems to be that facebook must provide certain API's to avoid anticompetitive behavior?
The API I personally most miss and am interested in is Events. My interest is definitely in reducing facebook's lock on users. A lot of people I know find missing out on events the hardest reason to leave facebook, and if an API was available show Facebook events on other platforms, it would definitely aid people in leaving Facebook, which is I presume exactly why Facebook got rid of the API, which sounds pretty similar to the Vine complaint, although I don't know whether there was a specific facebook competitor threatening them with events integration. I would be thrilled if the FTC made Facebook restore an Events API, hopefully in a way that was sufficiently full-featured for the kinds of integrations that would help people get off facebook. ("Help people get off", it sounds like an addiction, yup).
> The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
> The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
Making API's available "only on the condition that [developers] refrain from developing competing functionalities" is one thing; and I can see how that seems anticompetitive, I dont' know enough about the law to say when anticompetitive is illegal.
But that second one is more interesting. "shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook" -- they didn't just not have Vine have access to it, they removed it, and that is being complained about. The implication to me seems to be that facebook must provide certain API's to avoid anticompetitive behavior?
The API I personally most miss and am interested in is Events. My interest is definitely in reducing facebook's lock on users. A lot of people I know find missing out on events the hardest reason to leave facebook, and if an API was available show Facebook events on other platforms, it would definitely aid people in leaving Facebook, which is I presume exactly why Facebook got rid of the API, which sounds pretty similar to the Vine complaint, although I don't know whether there was a specific facebook competitor threatening them with events integration. I would be thrilled if the FTC made Facebook restore an Events API, hopefully in a way that was sufficiently full-featured for the kinds of integrations that would help people get off facebook. ("Help people get off", it sounds like an addiction, yup).
This to me is the only compelling argument and I personally hope the government makes this successfully. Trying to look at IG/WhatsApp acquisitions is dumb imho.
But FB has consistently introduced open APIs and features, let them gain traction, then shut them down and replicated the most popular features.
I have been burned multiple times. Most recently new restrictions on Messaging.
If FB was mandated to restore some APIs possible make new ones for interoperability (while keeping the privacy changes over the years) that would be super super valuable to help other companies make value without trying some fruitless and probably not sound breakup.
But FB has consistently introduced open APIs and features, let them gain traction, then shut them down and replicated the most popular features.
I have been burned multiple times. Most recently new restrictions on Messaging.
If FB was mandated to restore some APIs possible make new ones for interoperability (while keeping the privacy changes over the years) that would be super super valuable to help other companies make value without trying some fruitless and probably not sound breakup.
Most of there APIs are for preferred partners only, see for example their ecommerce, whatsapp or events apis, almost nothing can be accessed by a programmer working on his own.
The problem with these recent FAANG antitrust cases is that action is pretty narrow.
Google lost its Adwords case in the EU: using data gathered via the adwords advertising monopoly to support its search monopoly. $1.5bn fine. Google will happily pay this for anything that meaningfully strengthens their position in this market.
Besides the fine, all they have to do is stop doing the specific, narrow "monopolistic behaviour" that prosecutors were able to prove. This just isn't how monopoly works, and modifying some specific behaviour doesn't affect much.
Whack-a-mole is almost pointless. Antitrust is about structure, inherently. If antitrust action doesn't lead to structural changes, I don't see any point in it.
Similar cases will likely be prosecuted against Amazon (and google) in multiple jurisdictions with the adwords case serving as a (very narrow) template for prosecuting data/marketplace monopolism. Hence amazon. We can probably expect a similar result. A cost-of-doing-business fine and some updated policies about sharing data between the marketplace and retail arms.
If prosecutors prove both a monopoly position and monopolistic abuses (it did, and will), this needs to be deemed proof of a broad problem. Other monopolistic abuses need to be assumed. The fix needs to address the problems, known and unknown broadly. For example, by separating the marketplace and participant (adwords & search; amazon marketplace & retail) into seperate businesses.
In this FB case, it's about buying all the competition: whatsapp, instagram, etc. A fine or a policy update don't fix this. Force a sale of these companies. Ban FB from acquiring companies entirely, or social media companies at least.
Ultimately, the regulator has already failed here. Those acquisitions should not have been allowed in the first place.
Antitrust isn't about punishing bad behaviour. It's about dealing with bad structures.
That said, it does feel like antitrust cops are working up to it, gradually.
Google lost its Adwords case in the EU: using data gathered via the adwords advertising monopoly to support its search monopoly. $1.5bn fine. Google will happily pay this for anything that meaningfully strengthens their position in this market.
Besides the fine, all they have to do is stop doing the specific, narrow "monopolistic behaviour" that prosecutors were able to prove. This just isn't how monopoly works, and modifying some specific behaviour doesn't affect much.
Whack-a-mole is almost pointless. Antitrust is about structure, inherently. If antitrust action doesn't lead to structural changes, I don't see any point in it.
Similar cases will likely be prosecuted against Amazon (and google) in multiple jurisdictions with the adwords case serving as a (very narrow) template for prosecuting data/marketplace monopolism. Hence amazon. We can probably expect a similar result. A cost-of-doing-business fine and some updated policies about sharing data between the marketplace and retail arms.
If prosecutors prove both a monopoly position and monopolistic abuses (it did, and will), this needs to be deemed proof of a broad problem. Other monopolistic abuses need to be assumed. The fix needs to address the problems, known and unknown broadly. For example, by separating the marketplace and participant (adwords & search; amazon marketplace & retail) into seperate businesses.
In this FB case, it's about buying all the competition: whatsapp, instagram, etc. A fine or a policy update don't fix this. Force a sale of these companies. Ban FB from acquiring companies entirely, or social media companies at least.
Ultimately, the regulator has already failed here. Those acquisitions should not have been allowed in the first place.
Antitrust isn't about punishing bad behaviour. It's about dealing with bad structures.
That said, it does feel like antitrust cops are working up to it, gradually.
I fully support breaking up big tech, but there are geopolitical dimensions I'm surprised many pushing breaking up big tech don't seem to consider. It's much easier for non-US entities to selectively block and pressure smaller services.
The monopoly argument feels questionable. FB's acquisition of Instagram and Whatsapp has certainly solidified their long term standing. There is so much behavior crossover between the three that at some level it's become just a branding exercise. Whatsapp is entirely replaceable by FB messenger, many instagram features are directly implemented in FB and vice versa.
These are all serving slightly different parts of the market, but the market has TONS of social networks that are entirely outside of FB control. TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, even an ecosystem like google accounts or apple accounts, these all are large competitors to different aspects of what FB offers.
These are all serving slightly different parts of the market, but the market has TONS of social networks that are entirely outside of FB control. TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, even an ecosystem like google accounts or apple accounts, these all are large competitors to different aspects of what FB offers.
Can someone help me understand why the acquisitions here are considered anticompetitive?
I get it, if I buy the competition, then I'm reducing my competition. If I'm a car wash and I buy another car wash across the street, arguably our services overlap 100%. But maybe the acquired carwash was $4 more expensive and served a more luxury clientele. Is that a competitor or not a competitor or both?
How can you also ever prove that a company being acquired was truly a competitor? What percentage overlap on products and services would be necessary to deem that company a competitor?
My bet is that there is a lack of science here and surplus of qualitative judgment. Educate me please... :)
I get it, if I buy the competition, then I'm reducing my competition. If I'm a car wash and I buy another car wash across the street, arguably our services overlap 100%. But maybe the acquired carwash was $4 more expensive and served a more luxury clientele. Is that a competitor or not a competitor or both?
How can you also ever prove that a company being acquired was truly a competitor? What percentage overlap on products and services would be necessary to deem that company a competitor?
My bet is that there is a lack of science here and surplus of qualitative judgment. Educate me please... :)
I can't speak on how you can measure overlap, but after reading the FTC summary linked, it seems like the acquisitions are considered anticompetitive because Facebook recognized both Instagram and Whatsapp as potential threats to their primary product - Facebook - and sought to acquire them to neutralize that competitive threat.
Just to add - they also say the lawsuit is focusing not just on anticompetitive acquisitions, but anticompetitive practices related to developer access to APIs. Apparently Facebook has been heavy-handed towards developers that sought to use their APIs for any product that might have overlapped with their products. An example is Vine - Vine was apparently blocked from using the Facebook API to share videos or something.
Just to add - they also say the lawsuit is focusing not just on anticompetitive acquisitions, but anticompetitive practices related to developer access to APIs. Apparently Facebook has been heavy-handed towards developers that sought to use their APIs for any product that might have overlapped with their products. An example is Vine - Vine was apparently blocked from using the Facebook API to share videos or something.
From what i understand, the FTC reviewed the Instagram acquisition twice before giving their blessing. I wish we all had this kind of power to remake decisions depending on how they turn out. Would be pretty awesome.
I don't see this as being a solvable problem.
Having a psychographic model is dangerous to social structures, it just makes it far too easy to manipulate those who are easy to manipulate (which, given any topic, is the vast majority of people).
There are no effective defenses against this that I can see.
The trouble is the disconnect between Facebook's apparent business model and what it actually is, although I'll admit this might be conflating who is the real bad guy here.
The business of advertising is behavior manipulation, pure and simple. Nothing about that strikes me as "safe"
Having a psychographic model is dangerous to social structures, it just makes it far too easy to manipulate those who are easy to manipulate (which, given any topic, is the vast majority of people).
There are no effective defenses against this that I can see.
The trouble is the disconnect between Facebook's apparent business model and what it actually is, although I'll admit this might be conflating who is the real bad guy here.
The business of advertising is behavior manipulation, pure and simple. Nothing about that strikes me as "safe"
My guess is that this will end up the same was as the Microsoft case. Building network effects is not anti-competitive behavior. FB will argue that they are in fierce competition with Google in the market where they make their revenue, advertising. Not really relevant what the relative market concentration is in other non-revenue generating markets (social networking / search), which are only used to generate attention for the ads they sell in a market where FB's relative market power is < 50%.
As a thought experiment, imagine what the actual remedy is. An interesting concept would be to break up Facebook using AT&T as a metaphor. Make Facebook open up it's API to allow other applications to connect much like the baby bells could connect to the central network and eventually there were separate interconnected networks.
So the FB feed exists, but multiple apps can post. Each app consumes the feed and sells advertising to their own platform with FB charging a reasonable fixed interconnect fee.
So the FB feed exists, but multiple apps can post. Each app consumes the feed and sells advertising to their own platform with FB charging a reasonable fixed interconnect fee.
> Make Facebook open up it's API to allow other applications to connect much like the baby bells could connect to the central network and eventually there were separate interconnected networks.
The Facebook API is already pretty open. That's how we got Cambridge Analytica.
The Facebook API is already pretty open. That's how we got Cambridge Analytica.
This smells political, possibly retribution for crimes such as fact checking. It’s without merit. The complaint states that Facebook should have competed with Instagram and WhatsApp instead of acquiring them. But if it did so successfully, it would be likely to run afoul of antitrust law anyway.
And since when is a company under any obligation to provide its customer list to up and coming competitors? That’s ludicrous.
It’s interesting watching all the ways America tears itself apart.
And since when is a company under any obligation to provide its customer list to up and coming competitors? That’s ludicrous.
It’s interesting watching all the ways America tears itself apart.
I don't really feel like everyone's concerns are resolved by creating more unaccountable entities that all have everyone's data
Good. Facebook owns so much of the ad market now, and their support is non-existent. They have run ads that I didn't want running at all, haven't let me pause them, and haven't responded to support requests through their platform or through social media. I am really worried about what happens if they keep growing.
What about treating them as a monopoly? And giving them the laws of a monopoly? Like suggested here: https://hbr.org/2019/05/dont-break-up-facebook-treat-it-like...
I wonder if the world would converge to an open standard for social networks: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/privacy-economy-ap...
Note that the states filed a separate suit that is slightly broader in scope: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/facebook_complaint_12....
I don’t think Facebook is at fault for being smart and buying promising fledgling companies. What is needed is to make the big networks interoperable, probably by offering an API like Telegram does. The API could be priced according to usage, starting for free for small companies.
So if the acquisition of IG and Whats App were wrong, why did they get regulatory approval at the time?
IG was tiny at the time, not the behemoth it is today. They hadn't even released on Android yet.
Because the people in charge were happy with them at the time
They were flat out blocking any links to certain competitors.
https://heavy.com/tech/2018/10/facebook-block-minds-com-unse...
https://heavy.com/tech/2018/10/facebook-block-minds-com-unse...
[deleted]
I think the key is not whether they'll have to divest current platforms, but if they can acquire whatever will be the next popular platform. If Zuckerberg sells Instagram, but can still buy the next platform, he'll always maintain his monopoly.
> The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
If the FTC has their way, Facebook will need to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
If the FTC has their way, Facebook will need to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
This will result in a huge “fine”, a multi-billion dollar notch on FTC belts, and no change.
facebook is a 4th generation warfare munition.
FB is cultivating a body of heuristics for the manipulation of reaction prone individuals, and astroturfing to entrench ideals and predictable reactions to shocks or stressors.
simply put doxing and gaslighting to create an advantage that is beyond antitrust, and in the realm of world threatening.
for your convienience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince
for your convienience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince
Just curious, as I don't live in the states and haven't done the research: Didn't they need an approval for acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp? If so, did no one say at the time "hey, this might become a monopoly".
Is it weird that the FTC can sue for acquisitions that the FTC approved at the time?
Zuck is going to be richer than John D. Rockefeller when Standard Oil was broken up.
It will be interesting to see what the new administration will do with this. The way I see it, this type of charge creates more headache and landmines for the incoming administration than it does for Facebook.
I will be really surprised if this succeeds. FB can just point to Tiktok and show that an upstart can succeed as there is nothing tying someone to FB properties just by virtue of them being together.
An odd symmetry of sorts in the list of states participating:
Both North Carolina and North Dakota are participating in the suit.
Neither South Carolina nor South Dakota are participating.
(The other two holdouts are Georgia and Alabama).
Both North Carolina and North Dakota are participating in the suit.
Neither South Carolina nor South Dakota are participating.
(The other two holdouts are Georgia and Alabama).
I'm sure the FTC will have great success breaking up Facebook, just as they did breaking up Microsoft and IBM.
It obviously worked because neither Microsoft nor IBM is dominant in mobile computing.
It obviously worked because neither Microsoft nor IBM is dominant in mobile computing.
Nice! They are also going after API terms of use!
This decade is going to be lit.
This decade is going to be lit.
PLEASE, please, please, please, pretty-please force them to sell Oculus too. F*ck facebook for ruining a product like this by gating it with Facebook membership.
Short version: "Give us $500M and it will go away"
Despite the myriad of caveats I still like these attempts to rein in big tech, probably against my own interest as well. Well, let's see how it pans out.
Someone needs to tell the FTC that if they don't like how Facebook does its business, they're free to just start their own Facebook
Anyone who follows these kinds of suits: does this have teeth? What outcomes are we most likely to see as a result of this?
Yes, it has teeth - for some values of "teeth".
Yes, the FTC wins lawsuits like this. Not always, but some of the time. And if they win, they can in fact ask for Facebook to be broken up, and get it.
And even if they don't win, Facebook has to take it seriously, which takes time and energy from executives. They have to at least consider the chance that the FTC will win, which means that they might think about a settlement rather than rolling the dice on a trial. How much that settlement changes things depends on how the sides negotiate, which depends (at least in part) on how much confidence each side has that they would win.
Does this suit have enough merit to succeed? I have no idea.
Yes, the FTC wins lawsuits like this. Not always, but some of the time. And if they win, they can in fact ask for Facebook to be broken up, and get it.
And even if they don't win, Facebook has to take it seriously, which takes time and energy from executives. They have to at least consider the chance that the FTC will win, which means that they might think about a settlement rather than rolling the dice on a trial. How much that settlement changes things depends on how the sides negotiate, which depends (at least in part) on how much confidence each side has that they would win.
Does this suit have enough merit to succeed? I have no idea.
Can't wait for everyone to say the way it should work without any political analysis about what CAN happen. Someone's going to do something about tech. This is the thing they're doing. That's how law has worked since the founding. No one waits for a perfect law to enforce. We enforce, especially when there are major social ills. The actual solution is that tech needs to gets its sociopath issue under control. It won't. So it gets the hose.
Facebook is one of the best companies in the tech world. They open source so much tech and pre-trained ml models. Even being smaller than MS and Amazon their contributions are huge. (i don't know what AWS contributes)
Wasn't each of these acquisitions allowed by the FTC?
If it is illegal...shouldnt the AG prosecute them??
Hilarious that FB is being targeted for Instagram and Whatsapp when there's plenty of competition in the market. And somehow Google get's a free pass and so does Amazon.
split it between social and advertising and setup a transparent market to buy and sell personal data then let the market decide.
Facebook.com. has such a shitty user experience, I'm I the only one surprised it still has so many MAUs?
(This comment has nothing to do with Whatsapp and Instagram, just Facebook web)
(This comment has nothing to do with Whatsapp and Instagram, just Facebook web)
This entire thread belongs on https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes
Do enlighten us. Is there a point by point debunking summarized somewhere?
Moral of the story - don’t be unpopular
Is this one of the things they're trying to get in before the next Presidential administration? Is the consensus that Biden wouldn't go after Facebook as hard? I thought that both sides of the political spectrum loathed Facebook roughly equally.
I'm all for this but... Google, anyone?
About time.
[deleted]
It's retaliation for not handing Trump the election like in '16
And nothing will come of this except a slap on the wrist. I have more faith in the EU if fines are to be made big enough to make any difference at all.
Arguable. The antitrust cases against MS had a real and profound effect on the development of the first round of internet companies in the late 90's and early 2000's, even though it never went to a trial and verdict.
EU at most will just ban FB to allow local competitors to emerge. There's no point regulating american companies
So, out of all these big tech companies, Facebook is the monopoly?
Not Google with search? Not Apple with their App Store?
Facebook, a company whose products you could completely ignore and not even notice you're missing anything?
Not Google with search? Not Apple with their App Store?
Facebook, a company whose products you could completely ignore and not even notice you're missing anything?
[deleted]
Now do Google.
FB is on a lot of chopping blocks lately it’s hard to keep track. I guess this won’t really help with the Diem
Everyone's talking about divesting Instagram and WhatsApp, but I would much prefer that the FTC ordered Facebook to acquire and accidentally kill TikTok.
If you work at Facebook it's time to seriously consider leaving to avoid damage to your own brand. Future employers are going to be scrutinizing your record and will ask you difficult questions about why you stuck by Facebook despite an overwhelming consensus that they are damaging to the global social fabric.
For better or worse, I really doubt this matters.
Even Bill Gates has cleaned up his reputation, let alone engineers who worked at MS in monopoly days. I don't think anyone that was there at the time is worried about how it reflects on them personally.
Even Bill Gates has cleaned up his reputation, let alone engineers who worked at MS in monopoly days. I don't think anyone that was there at the time is worried about how it reflects on them personally.
> Even Bill Gates has cleaned up his reputation
It's amazing what a few billion dollars of charitable donations can buy you. This is called "fumigating your fortune".
It's amazing what a few billion dollars of charitable donations can buy you. This is called "fumigating your fortune".
> Future employers
> damaging to the global social fabric
I'm skeptical there'd be any hard feelings from other global corporations, arguably doing the same thing
I'm skeptical there'd be any hard feelings from other global corporations, arguably doing the same thing
Maybe if you're in the c-suite or work in a CSR role. Nobody does this when they hire software developers.
Sticking by Facebook now might be seen as a desirable trait in the eyes of some future employers. I'm looking at you Oracle.
A lack of conscience can be a very marketable trait ;)
I know people who have worked on drone targeting software that has killed civilians. No one cares.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366&p=3
(This message will eventually self-destruct.)