8 ms·

From Zuck (Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:28AM) Subject: Re:Competitive Mobile App Install Ads "I think we should block WeChat, Kakao and Line ads.Those companie

From Zuck (Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:28AM) Subject: Re:Competitive Mobile App Install Ads "I think we should block WeChat, Kakao and Line ads.Those companies are trying to build social networks and replace us.The revenue is immaterial to us compared to any risk. And I agree we should use ads to promote our own products, but I'd still block companies that compete with our core from gaining any advantage from us. I'd also keep blockingGoogle but otherwise wouldn't extend the block to anyone else."

paganel 7y ago
Emails like these should be enough for demanding the breakup of Facebook.
- lacker 7y ago
  Isn't that sort of thing pretty normal? ABC won't let Netflix run ads. Companies usually don't run advertising for their direct competitors.
  - jetrink 7y ago
    The behavior is the same, but the situations are different. ABC is a second-tier television network struggling for survival while Facebook is the dominant social network company and is abusing its position to stifle competition.
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      I don't think that changes anything. There's plenty of other illegal, monopolistic behavior to pick at here without demanding that ad companies run ads for their direct competitors.
    - mc32 7y ago
      It was the case when there were only three major national networks as well. That said, google is in a different business. Their ranking should be fair (aside for their paid rankings). In this case they should not be favoring themselves over others, that’s to say they should not artificially bury competitors in the fair ranking.
    - matthewrobertso 7y ago
      ABC is a second-tier television network owned by The Walt Disney Company, one of the largest media and entertainment companies in the world, operating a vast international industry of television networks, film studios, and theme parks.
      - the_watcher 7y ago
        And is about to launch a direct competitor to Netflix.
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      ABC, the network that is literally available for free via an HDMI antennae, does not care about Netflix. Disney, arguably the single biggest company in entertainment or media and ABC's parent, is about to launch a direct competitor to Netflix. Which party is more likely to be driving the decision not to air Netflix ads.
  - mantoto 7y ago
    A free market should regulate itself. A company like Facebook can regulate the market. That's when it becomes a problem.
    - joe_the_user 7y ago
      I don't think Facebook has a monopoly on eye-ball shares in particular. They might have monopoly on social networking as such but given they're not the only thing a person will see in a day by a long-shot, I can't see how they're being more anti-competitive than a TV network (which also has a large but limited share of views).
      - paganel 7y ago
        > They might have monopoly on social networking as such but given they're not the only thing a person will see in a day by a long-shot, I can't see how they're being more anti-competitive than a TV network Almost no-one bellow the age of 40 cares about TV anymore (apart from sports events), you're pretty off on this one.
        joe_the_user 7y ago
        Uh, even if you're right, the US is full of the 40+ people and their eye balls are high monetizable. Even more, TV networks are just an example and it is fricken obvious that Facebook doesn't have an advertising monopoly in the US or world-wide.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Facebook can not regulate the market when it only controls 19% of it.
    - laughingbovine 7y ago
      > A free market should regulate itself. Hoo boy. I agree it totally should. Been waiting for a while on that one though...
      - 7y ago
  - phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
    CBS All Access is running ads for Apple TV+
    - josteink 7y ago
      That’s because Apple TV+ is a joke right now and literally a threat to no one. Why not take the money and seem like a good sport while you’re at it?
    - scrumbledober 7y ago
      As is Hulu, owned by Disney. I actually saw the other day a Disney+ ad directly follow an Apple TV+ ad.
  - paganel 7y ago
    > ABC won't let Netflix run ads I suspect Netflix can run its ads on other TV channels (and if they can't/aren't allowed that's a problem in itself). As far as I can tell Facebook is the only place in town when it comes to social networks in the Western world, and it's a pretty big town, so to speak. As such, FB not letting a company like Google to advertise its services on this "only place in town" proves that either the town needs expanding (quite a difficult thing to do, as pretty much the whole current "town" population is pretty saturated with these FB-only products) or the "place" needs breaking up, i.e. Facebook needs to be split into different social networks.
- bawolff 7y ago
  To do what precisely? Separate the advertisment unit from the socialnetwork aspects of the bussiness? How would that work, the advertisement portion is what generates revenue for the social media product. Usually companies get split up so they cant use their dominance in one area to forcibly move into another area. But advertisements in facebook social network isnt a separate product-its what the social network is selling
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Separate the advertisment unit from the socialnetwork aspects of the bussiness? How would that work The same way it works for millions of other companies that aren't Facebook?
  - paganel 7y ago
    > To do what precisely? Separate the advertisment unit from the socialnetwork aspects of the bussiness? We can start by separating FB into at least two (preferably three) different social networks. I'd be pleased to see IG becoming an independent, separate company, and at some point after that maybe the same thing could happen for Whatsapp. If there is the political will this thing is doable, but this is a pretty big "if", I agree.
- diminoten 7y ago
  The Facebook breakup is vindictive. What monopoly do they hold?
  - paganel 7y ago
    The monopoly on social networks in the Western world, don't you think that's a pretty (I'd say huge) market?
lucb1e 7y ago
I don't really see this as morally objectionable (don't know about the law, am not a lawyer). It's interesting to see the perspective, though. Not sure what point you're making.
- VikingCoder 7y ago
  If you agree that Facebook has a monopoly on a certain kind of social networking, then this documents the abuse of that monopoly position.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    Would McDonald's (afaik by far the largest of its kind) have to advertise for its competitors on request? It seems weird to me. Secondly, they don't really have a monopoly from my perspective. I don't know many people that use Facebook-the-product for its intended purpose, that is, social networking instead of selling household items or organising ride sharing. And I don't know anyone who uses Instagram (except for one girl on the bus who looks down only enough to make sure she's tapping the post and not some other button on her screen, but otherwise only likes every post without even glancing at it). I guess that might be different in other countries.
    - jon138 7y ago
      I would say the majority of users of FB and IG are for social media. That’s why small business use them for ‘selling household items or organizing ride sharing’. I personally cannot think of another social media app as dominant as FB(including IG). If you happen to know one pls let me know.
      - lucb1e 7y ago
        > That’s why small business use them for ‘selling household items or organizing ride sharing’ Not organised by small businesses, it has nothing to do with any company. Just some dude(s) (or gal(s)) that run(s) a group called "ride shares between Cologne and Koblenz" where people post when they'll be driving, or "fleamarket Cologne" where people post their stuff (not sure how this isn't just a bad/limited replacement for ebay, but that's what I see Facebook being used for). As for replacements for the other parts of Facebook/Instagram, I don't know because I didn't switch away from using Facebook or Instagram: I've never used it. If you mention what you use it for, I can tell you how I achieve those goals instead. If it's keeping up with people, it's by meeting and chatting. Or if they don't have chat, then email and meeting. Or if you mean how to share pictures, I guess that would again be email or chat.
a13n 7y ago
These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all foreign (China, South Korea, Japan). China does anti-competitive stuff to US companies all the time. I doubt there's any legal case for FB abusing monopoly powers based on this email. If anything, this is just very competent business decision making.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  > These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all foreign. China does anti-competitive stuff to US companies . . . I don't think there's any exception in the antitrust laws like "but you can be anti-competitive if the other guy did it first." And anti-competitive behavior in a Chinese company can hardly justify anti-competitiveness against a Japanese company or a Korean company. They may all be in Asia but they are nonetheless different countries. Google is also not a Chinese company, as you are probably aware. Also a note: you don't have to be a monopoly to be charged with anti-competitive behavior. Being a monopoly can raise the standard of behavior and increase the penalties, but anti-competitive behavior can be illegal on its own, aside from whether you have an actual monopoly. For more you can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
  - a13n 7y ago
    I would guess foreign companies aren't protected by US antitrust law the way domestic ones are.
- mrchiefton 7y ago
  You seem to suggest that US companies can break the law because some other country is corrupt? I hold "our" companies to a higher standard. I hope judges do as well.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > legal case for FB abusing monopoly powers I think its referring to legality not standards. what law is FB breaking?

paganel 7y ago

Emails like these should be enough for demanding the breakup of Facebook.

lacker 7y ago
Isn't that sort of thing pretty normal? ABC won't let Netflix run ads. Companies usually don't run advertising for their direct competitors.
- jetrink 7y ago
  The behavior is the same, but the situations are different. ABC is a second-tier television network struggling for survival while Facebook is the dominant social network company and is abusing its position to stifle competition.
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    I don't think that changes anything. There's plenty of other illegal, monopolistic behavior to pick at here without demanding that ad companies run ads for their direct competitors.
  - mc32 7y ago
    It was the case when there were only three major national networks as well. That said, google is in a different business. Their ranking should be fair (aside for their paid rankings). In this case they should not be favoring themselves over others, that’s to say they should not artificially bury competitors in the fair ranking.
  - matthewrobertso 7y ago
    ABC is a second-tier television network owned by The Walt Disney Company, one of the largest media and entertainment companies in the world, operating a vast international industry of television networks, film studios, and theme parks.
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      And is about to launch a direct competitor to Netflix.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    ABC, the network that is literally available for free via an HDMI antennae, does not care about Netflix. Disney, arguably the single biggest company in entertainment or media and ABC's parent, is about to launch a direct competitor to Netflix. Which party is more likely to be driving the decision not to air Netflix ads.
- mantoto 7y ago
  A free market should regulate itself. A company like Facebook can regulate the market. That's when it becomes a problem.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    I don't think Facebook has a monopoly on eye-ball shares in particular. They might have monopoly on social networking as such but given they're not the only thing a person will see in a day by a long-shot, I can't see how they're being more anti-competitive than a TV network (which also has a large but limited share of views).
    - paganel 7y ago
      > They might have monopoly on social networking as such but given they're not the only thing a person will see in a day by a long-shot, I can't see how they're being more anti-competitive than a TV network Almost no-one bellow the age of 40 cares about TV anymore (apart from sports events), you're pretty off on this one.
      - joe_the_user 7y ago
        Uh, even if you're right, the US is full of the 40+ people and their eye balls are high monetizable. Even more, TV networks are just an example and it is fricken obvious that Facebook doesn't have an advertising monopoly in the US or world-wide.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Facebook can not regulate the market when it only controls 19% of it.
  - laughingbovine 7y ago
    > A free market should regulate itself. Hoo boy. I agree it totally should. Been waiting for a while on that one though...
    - 7y ago
- phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
  CBS All Access is running ads for Apple TV+
  - josteink 7y ago
    That’s because Apple TV+ is a joke right now and literally a threat to no one. Why not take the money and seem like a good sport while you’re at it?
  - scrumbledober 7y ago
    As is Hulu, owned by Disney. I actually saw the other day a Disney+ ad directly follow an Apple TV+ ad.
- paganel 7y ago
  > ABC won't let Netflix run ads I suspect Netflix can run its ads on other TV channels (and if they can't/aren't allowed that's a problem in itself). As far as I can tell Facebook is the only place in town when it comes to social networks in the Western world, and it's a pretty big town, so to speak. As such, FB not letting a company like Google to advertise its services on this "only place in town" proves that either the town needs expanding (quite a difficult thing to do, as pretty much the whole current "town" population is pretty saturated with these FB-only products) or the "place" needs breaking up, i.e. Facebook needs to be split into different social networks.
bawolff 7y ago
To do what precisely? Separate the advertisment unit from the socialnetwork aspects of the bussiness? How would that work, the advertisement portion is what generates revenue for the social media product. Usually companies get split up so they cant use their dominance in one area to forcibly move into another area. But advertisements in facebook social network isnt a separate product-its what the social network is selling
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Separate the advertisment unit from the socialnetwork aspects of the bussiness? How would that work The same way it works for millions of other companies that aren't Facebook?
- paganel 7y ago
  > To do what precisely? Separate the advertisment unit from the socialnetwork aspects of the bussiness? We can start by separating FB into at least two (preferably three) different social networks. I'd be pleased to see IG becoming an independent, separate company, and at some point after that maybe the same thing could happen for Whatsapp. If there is the political will this thing is doable, but this is a pretty big "if", I agree.
diminoten 7y ago
The Facebook breakup is vindictive. What monopoly do they hold?
- paganel 7y ago
  The monopoly on social networks in the Western world, don't you think that's a pretty (I'd say huge) market?

lucb1e 7y ago

I don't really see this as morally objectionable (don't know about the law, am not a lawyer). It's interesting to see the perspective, though. Not sure what point you're making.

VikingCoder 7y ago
If you agree that Facebook has a monopoly on a certain kind of social networking, then this documents the abuse of that monopoly position.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  Would McDonald's (afaik by far the largest of its kind) have to advertise for its competitors on request? It seems weird to me. Secondly, they don't really have a monopoly from my perspective. I don't know many people that use Facebook-the-product for its intended purpose, that is, social networking instead of selling household items or organising ride sharing. And I don't know anyone who uses Instagram (except for one girl on the bus who looks down only enough to make sure she's tapping the post and not some other button on her screen, but otherwise only likes every post without even glancing at it). I guess that might be different in other countries.
  - jon138 7y ago
    I would say the majority of users of FB and IG are for social media. That’s why small business use them for ‘selling household items or organizing ride sharing’. I personally cannot think of another social media app as dominant as FB(including IG). If you happen to know one pls let me know.
    - lucb1e 7y ago
      > That’s why small business use them for ‘selling household items or organizing ride sharing’ Not organised by small businesses, it has nothing to do with any company. Just some dude(s) (or gal(s)) that run(s) a group called "ride shares between Cologne and Koblenz" where people post when they'll be driving, or "fleamarket Cologne" where people post their stuff (not sure how this isn't just a bad/limited replacement for ebay, but that's what I see Facebook being used for). As for replacements for the other parts of Facebook/Instagram, I don't know because I didn't switch away from using Facebook or Instagram: I've never used it. If you mention what you use it for, I can tell you how I achieve those goals instead. If it's keeping up with people, it's by meeting and chatting. Or if they don't have chat, then email and meeting. Or if you mean how to share pictures, I guess that would again be email or chat.

a13n 7y ago

These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all foreign (China, South Korea, Japan). China does anti-competitive stuff to US companies all the time. I doubt there's any legal case for FB abusing monopoly powers based on this email. If anything, this is just very competent business decision making.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
> These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all foreign. China does anti-competitive stuff to US companies . . . I don't think there's any exception in the antitrust laws like "but you can be anti-competitive if the other guy did it first." And anti-competitive behavior in a Chinese company can hardly justify anti-competitiveness against a Japanese company or a Korean company. They may all be in Asia but they are nonetheless different countries. Google is also not a Chinese company, as you are probably aware. Also a note: you don't have to be a monopoly to be charged with anti-competitive behavior. Being a monopoly can raise the standard of behavior and increase the penalties, but anti-competitive behavior can be illegal on its own, aside from whether you have an actual monopoly. For more you can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
- a13n 7y ago
  I would guess foreign companies aren't protected by US antitrust law the way domestic ones are.
mrchiefton 7y ago
You seem to suggest that US companies can break the law because some other country is corrupt? I hold "our" companies to a higher standard. I hope judges do as well.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > legal case for FB abusing monopoly powers I think its referring to legality not standards. what law is FB breaking?