3 ms·

> Of course it’s Facebook’s API and they can do what they like about who can access it I'm a bit annoyed by this reaction... Basically the likes of Google and

by pyrale 10y ago

> Of course it’s Facebook’s API and they can do what they like about who can access it I'm a bit annoyed by this reaction... Basically the likes of Google and Facebook have been abusing it to translate their monopoly in mature markets into competitive advantage in emerging markets. Maybe it's time that, just like FB and Google are campaigning for the comoditization of broadband, we campaign for the classification of parts of their platforms/APIs as public utility.

pc86 10y ago
At which point, unless you are unsarcastically calling for the nationalization of Facebook, they simply turn the features off.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Well, China already has a nationalised Facebook. I suspect if Facebook are still around and dominant in 20 years there will be officially-mandated features (not necessarily this one, most likely anti-harrasment or anti-fake-news) or national-level Facebook replacements in many non-US countries.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I hate walled gardens and I'm all for trying to move you and, at least tech friends, to platforms people control. But the trouble is Facebook, Amazon, Google .. these companies are not only huge, they control distribution networks. Let's look at when Amazon removes a book from their store. Sure any retailer can choose not to supply a book, but when Amazon does it, their distribution network as become so large and central for most people that it does effectively censor the book. There are millions of people who only buy books through their service. I'm not saying they should be public entities, but you need to be aware of the fact that they do effectively control the flow of information just due to their sheer market share.
  - AznHisoka 10y ago
    "these companies are not only huge, they control distribution networks" They're huge precisely because they control distribution networks.
- pyrale 10y ago
  "The features" are working standalone products, and the sources of their competitive advantage. There is no reason for them to turn them off. I'm not asking to nationalise these companies. I'm saying public investigations in the current activities of FB and especially Google, in the light of antitrust laws, are overdue now : just as browsers were the gateway to internet and Microsoft got smacked for it, FB and Google are the new gateways to internet content, and therefore we should acknowledge that public interest should be considered in the way these businesses operate now.
tdkl 10y ago
Rather the opposite : start to campaign that corporations in size and influence as FB and Google aren't a public utility, nevertheless they're marketed as being such.
dismantlethesun 10y ago
Facebook Live is hardly just an 'API', it's the right to use their paid network to stream video to thousands of people in the world simultaneously. Live streaming gigabytes per second is not cheap, and its not surprising they'd only want to do it from their own app where they can at least show you their ads to try and recoup some of the cost.

by pyrale 10y ago

pc86 10y ago

At which point, unless you are unsarcastically calling for the nationalization of Facebook, they simply turn the features off.

pjc50 10y ago
Well, China already has a nationalised Facebook. I suspect if Facebook are still around and dominant in 20 years there will be officially-mandated features (not necessarily this one, most likely anti-harrasment or anti-fake-news) or national-level Facebook replacements in many non-US countries.
djsumdog 10y ago
I hate walled gardens and I'm all for trying to move you and, at least tech friends, to platforms people control. But the trouble is Facebook, Amazon, Google .. these companies are not only huge, they control distribution networks. Let's look at when Amazon removes a book from their store. Sure any retailer can choose not to supply a book, but when Amazon does it, their distribution network as become so large and central for most people that it does effectively censor the book. There are millions of people who only buy books through their service. I'm not saying they should be public entities, but you need to be aware of the fact that they do effectively control the flow of information just due to their sheer market share.
- AznHisoka 10y ago
  "these companies are not only huge, they control distribution networks" They're huge precisely because they control distribution networks.
pyrale 10y ago
"The features" are working standalone products, and the sources of their competitive advantage. There is no reason for them to turn them off. I'm not asking to nationalise these companies. I'm saying public investigations in the current activities of FB and especially Google, in the light of antitrust laws, are overdue now : just as browsers were the gateway to internet and Microsoft got smacked for it, FB and Google are the new gateways to internet content, and therefore we should acknowledge that public interest should be considered in the way these businesses operate now.

tdkl 10y ago

Rather the opposite : start to campaign that corporations in size and influence as FB and Google aren't a public utility, nevertheless they're marketed as being such.

dismantlethesun 10y ago

Facebook Live is hardly just an 'API', it's the right to use their paid network to stream video to thousands of people in the world simultaneously. Live streaming gigabytes per second is not cheap, and its not surprising they'd only want to do it from their own app where they can at least show you their ads to try and recoup some of the cost.