4 ms·

Well, the Warren Campaign was playing them, and they fell right into it. Because, by taking down her ads, they supported her point that they have too much power

Well, the Warren Campaign was playing them, and they fell right into it. Because, by taking down her ads, they supported her point that they have too much power to control debate. That is, that they've become a monopoly. So they either need to be very careful not to abuse their monopoly, or be highly regulated, or be broken up. Edit: Stole from ktjfi. [and spelling]

almost_usual 8y ago
Pretty genius strategy, she’ll also gain support from traditional media companies which have been battling Facebook lately.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Especially because they were $100 limited-reach ads. So she got lots of notice from ~no investment.
dgudkov 8y ago
>That is, that they've become a monopoly. Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing. There are strong reasons to break up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
  - dymk 8y ago
    Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees. They all hook into the same ad backend anyways.
    - saghm 8y ago
      Wouldn't the point of breaking those into separate companies be to _prevent_ them from hooking into the same backend?
      - jdavis703 8y ago
        What if they break FB, IG, Messenger and WhatsApp in to separate companies. They also spin out Facebook Ad Solutions Inc. or whatever it’s called to sell ads to all those separate companies along with anyone else who wants to display FB ads. This isn’t to say that this is what will happen, but it’s one potential.
        Dahoon 8y ago
        If they are broken up like this Google could sell ads to be shown on those platforms too.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. > They all hook into the same ad backend anyways Hence the call to break them up.
      - nopriorarrests 8y ago
        >If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. I mean, if anything, competition will lower the price per contact with potential voter? What problem it will solve?
  - dgudkov 8y ago
    I strongly disagree. Political advertisement successfully worked long before internet existed yet alone Facebook. Voters still live in houses, walk on streets, drive cars on roads, use public transit, watch TV/Netflix/YT/whatever. There are still many ways to reach them. Even if other channels are more expensive it doesn't make Facebook a monopolist.
    - liability 8y ago
      People no longer receive daily, or even weekly, deliveries of newspapers. They no longer crowd around the living room radio, and increasingly avoid the television, which increasingly has neither a cable connection nor rabbit ears. Like it or not, the world has changed.
      - dgudkov 8y ago
        The world has changed, but not that much. People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc. The real life still here, far not everything has moved online. And even for that online part Facebook is not a monopoly. Influential online company? Absolutely. Monopoly? No.
        liability 8y ago
        >People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Nothing they receive in their mailbox holds their attention long, the attention market is dominated by digital media. >Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc With headphones in or bluetooth paired. Who the hell reads a billboard? Who pairs their cellphone with their car, or owns headphones? Damn near everybody. Just try to buy a new car without Bluetooth. Old propaganda distribution channels are dead men walking, and everybody knows it. Unless you're advertising a chicken wings and cleavage bar at the next exit, you're a damn fool for paying for a billboard.
        p1necone 8y ago
- liability 8y ago
  The network effect is unaccounted for by current antitrust legislation, which is pathetically outdated.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  I just read the App Annie 2019 app report this morning, and the 3 most used apps in Singapore in 2018 were Whatsapp, Instagram and Facebook. Though I didn't check for US stats I'm sure they are similar. That is effectively a monopoly.
  - dgudkov 8y ago
    >That is effectively a monopoly. Monopoly on what exactly?
    - pard68 8y ago
      Eyeballs
chillacy 8y ago
Except she can run ads on google or Twitter or Snapchat or reddit to her Medium blog. If Starbucks kicks you out you can still get coffee elsewhere. If Comcast kicks me out I have no other choices for internet.

almost_usual 8y ago

Pretty genius strategy, she’ll also gain support from traditional media companies which have been battling Facebook lately.

mirimir 8y ago
Especially because they were $100 limited-reach ads. So she got lots of notice from ~no investment.

dgudkov 8y ago

>That is, that they've become a monopoly. Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing. There are strong reasons to break up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
- dymk 8y ago
  Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees. They all hook into the same ad backend anyways.
  - saghm 8y ago
    Wouldn't the point of breaking those into separate companies be to _prevent_ them from hooking into the same backend?
    - jdavis703 8y ago
      What if they break FB, IG, Messenger and WhatsApp in to separate companies. They also spin out Facebook Ad Solutions Inc. or whatever it’s called to sell ads to all those separate companies along with anyone else who wants to display FB ads. This isn’t to say that this is what will happen, but it’s one potential.
      - Dahoon 8y ago
        If they are broken up like this Google could sell ads to be shown on those platforms too.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. > They all hook into the same ad backend anyways Hence the call to break them up.
    - nopriorarrests 8y ago
      >If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. I mean, if anything, competition will lower the price per contact with potential voter? What problem it will solve?
- dgudkov 8y ago
  I strongly disagree. Political advertisement successfully worked long before internet existed yet alone Facebook. Voters still live in houses, walk on streets, drive cars on roads, use public transit, watch TV/Netflix/YT/whatever. There are still many ways to reach them. Even if other channels are more expensive it doesn't make Facebook a monopolist.
  - liability 8y ago
    People no longer receive daily, or even weekly, deliveries of newspapers. They no longer crowd around the living room radio, and increasingly avoid the television, which increasingly has neither a cable connection nor rabbit ears. Like it or not, the world has changed.
    - dgudkov 8y ago
      The world has changed, but not that much. People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc. The real life still here, far not everything has moved online. And even for that online part Facebook is not a monopoly. Influential online company? Absolutely. Monopoly? No.
      - liability 8y ago
        >People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Nothing they receive in their mailbox holds their attention long, the attention market is dominated by digital media. >Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc With headphones in or bluetooth paired. Who the hell reads a billboard? Who pairs their cellphone with their car, or owns headphones? Damn near everybody. Just try to buy a new car without Bluetooth. Old propaganda distribution channels are dead men walking, and everybody knows it. Unless you're advertising a chicken wings and cleavage bar at the next exit, you're a damn fool for paying for a billboard.
        p1necone 8y ago
liability 8y ago
The network effect is unaccounted for by current antitrust legislation, which is pathetically outdated.
rorykoehler 8y ago
I just read the App Annie 2019 app report this morning, and the 3 most used apps in Singapore in 2018 were Whatsapp, Instagram and Facebook. Though I didn't check for US stats I'm sure they are similar. That is effectively a monopoly.
- dgudkov 8y ago
  >That is effectively a monopoly. Monopoly on what exactly?
  - pard68 8y ago
    Eyeballs

chillacy 8y ago

Except she can run ads on google or Twitter or Snapchat or reddit to her Medium blog. If Starbucks kicks you out you can still get coffee elsewhere. If Comcast kicks me out I have no other choices for internet.