3 ms·

I voted you up for making good points, but I think Facebook's 3b buyout offer(which many thought was on the high side at the time) negates any accusations of ab

by majani 9y ago

I voted you up for making good points, but I think Facebook's 3b buyout offer(which many thought was on the high side at the time) negates any accusations of abuse of power.

adventured 9y ago
Microsoft tried to buy Netscape. It doesn't negate it on the part of Facebook, just as that did absolutely nothing for Microsoft back then and for exactly the same reason. In fact it enhances the negative view of the monopoly company in question as a predator looking to dominate. That's how it'll be played in the press, it's how it'll be spun by competitors and by the government entities. If you go back and read about Microsoft's interactions with Netscape (Marc Andreessen provided a key piece of evidence of Microsoft's predatory behavior by taking notes in said meeting/s), you'll find that their efforts to 'buy or bury' Netscape was entirely relevant as the case went on as evidence of a sort of character portrayal the government was spinning of Microsoft as a company hell-bent on dominance (ie seeking to limit consumer choice to enhance their market power; which is perhaps how it'll be spun against Facebook - by wiping out Snapchat, Facebook can plausibly raise its ad prices, as consumers will supposedly have fewer social destinations, and advertisers will have fewer platforms competing for their marketing dollars, etc etc and so on; it doesn't matter if one agrees with this premise, it's exactly the sort of slightly subjective argument (that happens to be kinda hard to prove and kinda hard to disprove) that will be used by the government). The fact that the offer was perhaps high at the time, will also be spun as proof that very clearly Facebook has too much power, that they are deriving such immense profit from their social monopoly that they can afford to overpay to sustain that monopoly. You see, anti-trust is an intentionally subjective field of law. It was designed to be vague, it enables them to go after you for nearly any perceived abuse of market power (with a more recent high-tilt toward consumer well-being, but back in reality the Microsoft case was overwhelmingly about powerful, rich competitors crying foul).

by majani 9y ago

I voted you up for making good points, but I think Facebook's 3b buyout offer(which many thought was on the high side at the time) negates any accusations of abuse of power.

adventured 9y ago

Microsoft tried to buy Netscape. It doesn't negate it on the part of Facebook, just as that did absolutely nothing for Microsoft back then and for exactly the same reason. In fact it enhances the negative view of the monopoly company in question as a predator looking to dominate. That's how it'll be played in the press, it's how it'll be spun by competitors and by the government entities. If you go back and read about Microsoft's interactions with Netscape (Marc Andreessen provided a key piece of evidence of Microsoft's predatory behavior by taking notes in said meeting/s), you'll find that their efforts to 'buy or bury' Netscape was entirely relevant as the case went on as evidence of a sort of character portrayal the government was spinning of Microsoft as a company hell-bent on dominance (ie seeking to limit consumer choice to enhance their market power; which is perhaps how it'll be spun against Facebook - by wiping out Snapchat, Facebook can plausibly raise its ad prices, as consumers will supposedly have fewer social destinations, and advertisers will have fewer platforms competing for their marketing dollars, etc etc and so on; it doesn't matter if one agrees with this premise, it's exactly the sort of slightly subjective argument (that happens to be kinda hard to prove and kinda hard to disprove) that will be used by the government). The fact that the offer was perhaps high at the time, will also be spun as proof that very clearly Facebook has too much power, that they are deriving such immense profit from their social monopoly that they can afford to overpay to sustain that monopoly. You see, anti-trust is an intentionally subjective field of law. It was designed to be vague, it enables them to go after you for nearly any perceived abuse of market power (with a more recent high-tilt toward consumer well-being, but back in reality the Microsoft case was overwhelmingly about powerful, rich competitors crying foul).