4 ms·

Broken up into what? I don't understand what meaningful monopoly Facebook has, especially when compared to Apple and Google.

by ng12 8y ago

gliboc 8y ago
Likes, interests, social relationships. Mostly every social data that is not provided by either pictures, internet history or contact list (which is about all Google and Apple have).
- gliboc 8y ago
  And I forgot geolocation but all of them have it anyway.
- ng12 8y ago
  Is there a precedent for this? Is it a monopoly if there's nothing preventing you from starting your own competing product collecting the same data? Of course Facebook has a monopoly over Facebook's own product.
  - gliboc 8y ago
    I don't know, but probably. Sometimes you had your information for shady reasons, and it would be almost impossible to recreate it. It is a bit what's happened with Facebook if you agree that the public lacked a sense of data-privacy until then, and got abused because of that. I guess that's what GDPR is about too. We used to discard the value of digital data, mostly I guess because it could be generated and exchanged at the speed of light. When people realized they could make money out of it, giants sitting on huge databases of personal data suddenly became the norm. And they don't share unless you pay them (if it is even in their business model). > Is it a monopoly if there's nothing preventing you from starting your own competing product collecting the same data? First, remember Facebook has more than two billion active users. I don't think you can realistically compete against that. Anyway, this is a thin line argument. In some countries, I've been told, Facebook acts almost like a hub for the internet. I guess you cannot either compete against the pipes themselves. I think Monopoly regulations are not about punishing evil corporations. They exist because such situations restrain innovation (including from companies having the monopoly) and generally disrupt free market by having one player able to do price-fixing. Honestly, I think Facebook is being hit hard by that first part by totally failing to appeal to a younger audience while becoming the dreamland of advertising.
    - ng12 8y ago
      > First, remember Facebook has more than two billion active users. I don't think you can realistically compete against that. What about Snapchat, Twitter, and LinkedIn?
      - gliboc 8y ago
        Can you start your own product and compete against these ? Also, technically, Twitter has 336 million active users per month [1], Snapchat has 200 million daily active users so we can easily double that amount for monthly usage [2], while LinkedIn claims 550 million users, but the monthly visits are about 100 millions [3]. Whereas Facebook is indeed 2.2 billion monthly active users [4]. All of these three huge players combined still only add up to less than a billion, notwithstanding people who are counted thrice by using each platform. I'm surprised how huge the gap remains. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/545967/snapchat-app-dau/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/545967/snapchat-app-dau/ [3] https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-a-few-important-linkedin-stats/ https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-a-few... [4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...
sprafa 8y ago
They should’ve obliged to allow for data portability with other social networks. There is no reason they can hold onto your friends list as a hostage. If you could move to other social networks and interop with their messenger and feed (how hard can that be anyway) they would be a lot less shitty in my view.
- morgante 8y ago
  They used to allow far more data portability/access and that's exactly what got them in trouble (Cambridge Analytica).
  - civilitty 8y ago
    No, what allowed Cambridge Analytica to do what it did was lax privacy controls that allowed your friends to give CA permission to your data when they registered for the personality test app. That is not the same thing as data portability.
kerng 8y ago
Split out WhatsApp and Instagram again, so we have some competition. Good for end users.

Broken up into what? I don't understand what meaningful monopoly Facebook has, especially when compared to Apple and Google.

by ng12 8y ago

Broken up into what? I don't understand what meaningful monopoly Facebook has, especially when compared to Apple and Google.

gliboc 8y ago

Likes, interests, social relationships. Mostly every social data that is not provided by either pictures, internet history or contact list (which is about all Google and Apple have).

gliboc 8y ago
And I forgot geolocation but all of them have it anyway.
ng12 8y ago
Is there a precedent for this? Is it a monopoly if there's nothing preventing you from starting your own competing product collecting the same data? Of course Facebook has a monopoly over Facebook's own product.
- gliboc 8y ago
  I don't know, but probably. Sometimes you had your information for shady reasons, and it would be almost impossible to recreate it. It is a bit what's happened with Facebook if you agree that the public lacked a sense of data-privacy until then, and got abused because of that. I guess that's what GDPR is about too. We used to discard the value of digital data, mostly I guess because it could be generated and exchanged at the speed of light. When people realized they could make money out of it, giants sitting on huge databases of personal data suddenly became the norm. And they don't share unless you pay them (if it is even in their business model). > Is it a monopoly if there's nothing preventing you from starting your own competing product collecting the same data? First, remember Facebook has more than two billion active users. I don't think you can realistically compete against that. Anyway, this is a thin line argument. In some countries, I've been told, Facebook acts almost like a hub for the internet. I guess you cannot either compete against the pipes themselves. I think Monopoly regulations are not about punishing evil corporations. They exist because such situations restrain innovation (including from companies having the monopoly) and generally disrupt free market by having one player able to do price-fixing. Honestly, I think Facebook is being hit hard by that first part by totally failing to appeal to a younger audience while becoming the dreamland of advertising.
  - ng12 8y ago
    > First, remember Facebook has more than two billion active users. I don't think you can realistically compete against that. What about Snapchat, Twitter, and LinkedIn?
    - gliboc 8y ago
      Can you start your own product and compete against these ? Also, technically, Twitter has 336 million active users per month [1], Snapchat has 200 million daily active users so we can easily double that amount for monthly usage [2], while LinkedIn claims 550 million users, but the monthly visits are about 100 millions [3]. Whereas Facebook is indeed 2.2 billion monthly active users [4]. All of these three huge players combined still only add up to less than a billion, notwithstanding people who are counted thrice by using each platform. I'm surprised how huge the gap remains. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/545967/snapchat-app-dau/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/545967/snapchat-app-dau/ [3] https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-a-few-important-linkedin-stats/ https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-a-few... [4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...

sprafa 8y ago

They should’ve obliged to allow for data portability with other social networks. There is no reason they can hold onto your friends list as a hostage. If you could move to other social networks and interop with their messenger and feed (how hard can that be anyway) they would be a lot less shitty in my view.

morgante 8y ago
They used to allow far more data portability/access and that's exactly what got them in trouble (Cambridge Analytica).
- civilitty 8y ago
  No, what allowed Cambridge Analytica to do what it did was lax privacy controls that allowed your friends to give CA permission to your data when they registered for the personality test app. That is not the same thing as data portability.

kerng 8y ago

Split out WhatsApp and Instagram again, so we have some competition. Good for end users.