9 ms·

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even u

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out your competition is pretty standard among all businesses, as is buying out the ones you can't beat. > there was evidence that Facebook's refusal to share data with some apps caused them to fail Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't?

empath75 8y ago
> Checking out your competition is pretty standard among all businesses, as is buying out the ones you can't beat. To be clear-- they marketed Onava as a VPN service to protect your personal data from spying and then they spied on your personal data to figure out what products you were using.
dao- 8y ago
> So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? Yeah. I'm guessing they have a bad business model.
johnnyfaehell 8y ago
> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebook taking advantage of their stronghold on the market to continue to dominate the market. Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. It should be up to the User who they can share their data with, but they weren't given the choice to use their data with an app because Facebook decided they didn't like the way the other business competes with them in some aspect or how they aren't making money out of the third party app. An example is Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal. So if they refuse to allow you to share your data with people you want to share it with, that is bad. Sharing your data with companies you don't want to share with is also bad.
- ddalex 8y ago
  > is not Facebook's data Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_protection_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...
    - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
      My understanding is that gdpr still doesn't say that it's your data and not Facebook's, it just gives you certain rights to that data such as the right to have it deleted.
      - Angostura 8y ago
        Facebook is the Data Controller, not the owner of the data
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in...avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR Because they’ve been so careful about following other laws?
      - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Checking out your competition is pretty standard among all businesses, as is buying out the ones you can't beat. The fact that buying out competitors you can't beat is seen as 'standard' is the problem. When facing a competitor that you can't beat the standard should be: improve or die.
netcan 8y ago
Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility I think this point is, at least partially, arguable. Take "political media." FB is so dominant and powerful in this arena that excluding individuals or parties is very close to denying people their rights to free speech and/or associon. Idk if you can make that case about apps, because their app platform is not that important, but you could make it about Android or ios... maybe Aws.
lkrubner 8y ago
"Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility" [the following paragraph does not assert that FB is a monopoly, it is agnostic] The law says that a company with a monopoly needs to act a bit like a public utility. Recall what Microsoft did to Netscape -- was there anything wrong with that? Is a company allowed to take action against a competitor? The normal answer is "Yes". But different rules apply if the government can prove that a company has monopoly power in some market. Actions that are allowed among normal competitors are no longer allowed once a company has near monopoly powers. I think fast growing tech companies get into trouble because the founders doesn't realize how much the company has grown. Bill Gates could use aggressive tactics during the 1980s because Microsoft was still small. He got into trouble in 1994 because he didn't realize how much Microsoft had grown, and how much the rest of the world suddenly regarded it as a behemoth. Therefore he was no longer allowed to pursue the aggressive tactics that he'd previously been free to use. Arguably, the same reality has now caught up with FaceBook.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual Facebook is unusually large and lawless. Their favoring industry incumbents decreases the economy’s dynamism. If you want to compete with Airbnb, now, you must not only launch a better product. You must also curry favor with Facebook. That’s a lot of trust for society to put in a company with a track record of terrible judgement. (This is also why we regulate monopolies.)
bduerst 8y ago
Agreed. Facebook purchased third-party data to guide their acquisition strategy. Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions. The selective access to competing apps, based solely on this information, is antitrust though. If the apps violate rules that apply to everyone, that's different, but that doesn't appear to be the case? Edit: turns out Onovo had access to specific, proprietary data, acquired through it's own shitty apps, which facebook acquired. This is pretty shady.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions Facebook bought Onavo in 2013 [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analytics-company-onavo-and-finally-gets-its-office-in-israel/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Interesting, didn't know that. Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't?
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't? Yes. Onavo built “consumer-facing apps to help optimise device and app performance and battery life on iOS and Android devices” [1] while piping their users’ data to Facebook. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analytics-company-onavo-and-finally-gets-its-office-in-israel/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...
      - bduerst 8y ago
        So they were basically the spamware apps like flashlight and other 'performance enhancers'? That makes this kind of worse, especially if they continued it after acquisition.
mcguire 8y ago
Unless they're a monopoly...
tynpeddler 8y ago
I agree that the first point seems pretty routine, but the second one is a problem. Look at Microsoft in the late 90's. They changed their system API's and refused to publish the changes for the express purpose of killing netscape. That was later deemed to be illegal. Facebook using their market dominance to kill other apps seems to be very similar.
- spunker540 8y ago
  I think they were mostly using their market dominance to kill apps that decided to live on the Facebook platform in the first place. If you build an app that relies solely on Facebook login and access to Facebook data as key parts of your business model then are you really a competitor?
  - danarmak 8y ago
    Well, if you build an app that runs on Windows like Netscape did, are you really a competitor of Microsoft? Turns out, you might be, if Microsoft want to make their own app. Similarly, Facebook might want to introduce or change native functionality, or monetize their platform, in a way that competes with your app.
    - spunker540 8y ago
      That's a good point of comparison but the difference I think is at the time Windows was a dominant OS, and most people's only option. For them to come out and compete with Netscape and prevent Netscape from operating on their OS would be a death sentence for Netscape because it is not reasonable for Netscape's response to be "Fine we'll make our own OS!". There's a huge difference between "build your own OS" and "build your own website login". It's not a very tall order to create a social website that doesn't use FB login. Social websites should not by default have a right to all of facebook's users. They should have to build that user base themselves.
r00fus 8y ago
Would you say Facebook has monopoly position in social networks?

empath75 8y ago

> Checking out your competition is pretty standard among all businesses, as is buying out the ones you can't beat. To be clear-- they marketed Onava as a VPN service to protect your personal data from spying and then they spied on your personal data to figure out what products you were using.

dao- 8y ago

> So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? Yeah. I'm guessing they have a bad business model.

johnnyfaehell 8y ago

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebook taking advantage of their stronghold on the market to continue to dominate the market. Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. It should be up to the User who they can share their data with, but they weren't given the choice to use their data with an app because Facebook decided they didn't like the way the other business competes with them in some aspect or how they aren't making money out of the third party app. An example is Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal. So if they refuse to allow you to share your data with people you want to share it with, that is bad. Sharing your data with companies you don't want to share with is also bad.

ddalex 8y ago
> is not Facebook's data Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_protection_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...
  - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
    My understanding is that gdpr still doesn't say that it's your data and not Facebook's, it just gives you certain rights to that data such as the right to have it deleted.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      Facebook is the Data Controller, not the owner of the data
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in...avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR Because they’ve been so careful about following other laws?
    - johnnyfaehell 8y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>Checking out your competition is pretty standard among all businesses, as is buying out the ones you can't beat. The fact that buying out competitors you can't beat is seen as 'standard' is the problem. When facing a competitor that you can't beat the standard should be: improve or die.

netcan 8y ago

Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility I think this point is, at least partially, arguable. Take "political media." FB is so dominant and powerful in this arena that excluding individuals or parties is very close to denying people their rights to free speech and/or associon. Idk if you can make that case about apps, because their app platform is not that important, but you could make it about Android or ios... maybe Aws.

lkrubner 8y ago

"Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility" [the following paragraph does not assert that FB is a monopoly, it is agnostic] The law says that a company with a monopoly needs to act a bit like a public utility. Recall what Microsoft did to Netscape -- was there anything wrong with that? Is a company allowed to take action against a competitor? The normal answer is "Yes". But different rules apply if the government can prove that a company has monopoly power in some market. Actions that are allowed among normal competitors are no longer allowed once a company has near monopoly powers. I think fast growing tech companies get into trouble because the founders doesn't realize how much the company has grown. Bill Gates could use aggressive tactics during the 1980s because Microsoft was still small. He got into trouble in 1994 because he didn't realize how much Microsoft had grown, and how much the rest of the world suddenly regarded it as a behemoth. Therefore he was no longer allowed to pursue the aggressive tactics that he'd previously been free to use. Arguably, the same reality has now caught up with FaceBook.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual Facebook is unusually large and lawless. Their favoring industry incumbents decreases the economy’s dynamism. If you want to compete with Airbnb, now, you must not only launch a better product. You must also curry favor with Facebook. That’s a lot of trust for society to put in a company with a track record of terrible judgement. (This is also why we regulate monopolies.)

bduerst 8y ago

Agreed. Facebook purchased third-party data to guide their acquisition strategy. Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions. The selective access to competing apps, based solely on this information, is antitrust though. If the apps violate rules that apply to everyone, that's different, but that doesn't appear to be the case? Edit: turns out Onovo had access to specific, proprietary data, acquired through it's own shitty apps, which facebook acquired. This is pretty shady.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions Facebook bought Onavo in 2013 [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analytics-company-onavo-and-finally-gets-its-office-in-israel/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...
- bduerst 8y ago
  Interesting, didn't know that. Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't?
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't? Yes. Onavo built “consumer-facing apps to help optimise device and app performance and battery life on iOS and Android devices” [1] while piping their users’ data to Facebook. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analytics-company-onavo-and-finally-gets-its-office-in-israel/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...
    - bduerst 8y ago
      So they were basically the spamware apps like flashlight and other 'performance enhancers'? That makes this kind of worse, especially if they continued it after acquisition.

mcguire 8y ago

Unless they're a monopoly...

tynpeddler 8y ago

I agree that the first point seems pretty routine, but the second one is a problem. Look at Microsoft in the late 90's. They changed their system API's and refused to publish the changes for the express purpose of killing netscape. That was later deemed to be illegal. Facebook using their market dominance to kill other apps seems to be very similar.

spunker540 8y ago
I think they were mostly using their market dominance to kill apps that decided to live on the Facebook platform in the first place. If you build an app that relies solely on Facebook login and access to Facebook data as key parts of your business model then are you really a competitor?
- danarmak 8y ago
  Well, if you build an app that runs on Windows like Netscape did, are you really a competitor of Microsoft? Turns out, you might be, if Microsoft want to make their own app. Similarly, Facebook might want to introduce or change native functionality, or monetize their platform, in a way that competes with your app.
  - spunker540 8y ago
    That's a good point of comparison but the difference I think is at the time Windows was a dominant OS, and most people's only option. For them to come out and compete with Netscape and prevent Netscape from operating on their OS would be a death sentence for Netscape because it is not reasonable for Netscape's response to be "Fine we'll make our own OS!". There's a huge difference between "build your own OS" and "build your own website login". It's not a very tall order to create a social website that doesn't use FB login. Social websites should not by default have a right to all of facebook's users. They should have to build that user base themselves.

r00fus 8y ago

Would you say Facebook has monopoly position in social networks?