5 ms·

This seems like this will trigger anti-trust proceedings.

bena 8y ago
How so? Facebook is owned by Facebook. Facebook is simply not allowing other services to post on a user's behalf. Those other services still exist, Facebook is not a public good, etc.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Google Shopping was fined over less: https://www.tnooz.com/article/google-shopping-decision-sets-precedent-which-could-decide-future-of-google-flights/ https://www.tnooz.com/article/google-shopping-decision-sets-... Large companies, particularly in the EU, are not allowed to throw their weight around to privilege their own services and apps.
  - bena 8y ago
    That's not "less". That's way more. Google prioritizing their offerings over other vendors on a search they control is far different than "Can't post on Facebook from Twitter". Google has put itself forward as a fairly agnostic search. No one signs up to be indexed by Google. It works more like a common good. So when Google starts offering a service, then puts its own offerings before others in its search. That's dirty pool. But that's not what's happening here. Facebook is a platform to connect with other people who are also on Facebook. It doesn't purport to be a central hub for anything but Facebook. It's just not allowing Twitter (and others) to post on users' behalf.
    - genericid 8y ago
      So if Google started to say that Google is primarily an interface to Google products, their anti-competetive behaviour would suddenly be okay?
- bwilliams18 8y ago
  A big part of anti-trust law in the US is that natural monopolies are permitted - you can build a business that dominates your market segment and not be subject to anti-trust proceedings, but you cannot use that natural monopoly to advantage your other lines of business by providing them with exclusive, preferred or other special treatment in said natural monopoly. This was the crux of US vs. MSFT. The argument here is that Facebook is a natural monopoly and by only allowing Instagram to post automatically to a users timeline, they are leveraging that legal natural monopolies power to advantage Instagram.
  - genericid 8y ago
    "Natural monopoly" does not mean that.
  - bena 8y ago
    What does Facebook have a monopoly on? Microsoft had a monopoly on the retail operating system space and leveraged that monopoly to force vendors into bad positions that excluded other operating systems a shot on a fair market. They also used their position to push their products to the detriment of other competitors. As far as I can tell, Facebook just has a monopoly on Facebook. Which is to be expected since Facebook is Facebook.
    - bwilliams18 8y ago
      I should have included this in my parent comment: this is the argument regarding facebook's activities being anti-competitive; I don't necessarily believe this argument to be true. I really don't have a position on it in either direction at this time.
      - bena 8y ago
        Then that doesn't really help anything here. I asked how would this trigger anti-trust proceedings because Facebook is not abusing a monopoly position, they're just not letting other services post to their site. You responded by basically saying "Yeah, but people think they are". Which really doesn't address anything. So I asked more directly what do they have a monopoly on. I know people think they're a monopoly. I think those people are wrong. At least until they can tell me a monopoly on what.
- trumped 8y ago
  > Facebook is not a public good I thought Facebook was on the stock market...

bena 8y ago

How so? Facebook is owned by Facebook. Facebook is simply not allowing other services to post on a user's behalf. Those other services still exist, Facebook is not a public good, etc.

bobthepanda 8y ago
Google Shopping was fined over less: https://www.tnooz.com/article/google-shopping-decision-sets-precedent-which-could-decide-future-of-google-flights/ https://www.tnooz.com/article/google-shopping-decision-sets-... Large companies, particularly in the EU, are not allowed to throw their weight around to privilege their own services and apps.
- bena 8y ago
  That's not "less". That's way more. Google prioritizing their offerings over other vendors on a search they control is far different than "Can't post on Facebook from Twitter". Google has put itself forward as a fairly agnostic search. No one signs up to be indexed by Google. It works more like a common good. So when Google starts offering a service, then puts its own offerings before others in its search. That's dirty pool. But that's not what's happening here. Facebook is a platform to connect with other people who are also on Facebook. It doesn't purport to be a central hub for anything but Facebook. It's just not allowing Twitter (and others) to post on users' behalf.
  - genericid 8y ago
    So if Google started to say that Google is primarily an interface to Google products, their anti-competetive behaviour would suddenly be okay?
bwilliams18 8y ago
A big part of anti-trust law in the US is that natural monopolies are permitted - you can build a business that dominates your market segment and not be subject to anti-trust proceedings, but you cannot use that natural monopoly to advantage your other lines of business by providing them with exclusive, preferred or other special treatment in said natural monopoly. This was the crux of US vs. MSFT. The argument here is that Facebook is a natural monopoly and by only allowing Instagram to post automatically to a users timeline, they are leveraging that legal natural monopolies power to advantage Instagram.
- genericid 8y ago
  "Natural monopoly" does not mean that.
- bena 8y ago
  What does Facebook have a monopoly on? Microsoft had a monopoly on the retail operating system space and leveraged that monopoly to force vendors into bad positions that excluded other operating systems a shot on a fair market. They also used their position to push their products to the detriment of other competitors. As far as I can tell, Facebook just has a monopoly on Facebook. Which is to be expected since Facebook is Facebook.
  - bwilliams18 8y ago
    I should have included this in my parent comment: this is the argument regarding facebook's activities being anti-competitive; I don't necessarily believe this argument to be true. I really don't have a position on it in either direction at this time.
    - bena 8y ago
      Then that doesn't really help anything here. I asked how would this trigger anti-trust proceedings because Facebook is not abusing a monopoly position, they're just not letting other services post to their site. You responded by basically saying "Yeah, but people think they are". Which really doesn't address anything. So I asked more directly what do they have a monopoly on. I know people think they're a monopoly. I think those people are wrong. At least until they can tell me a monopoly on what.
trumped 8y ago
> Facebook is not a public good I thought Facebook was on the stock market...