4 ms·

"What's even the point of adding a bunch of rules to break up a player with less than a third of the market and already in decline?" The market they are defini

"What's even the point of adding a bunch of rules to break up a player with less than a third of the market and already in decline?" The market they are defining does not include Facebook, Amazon or other "walled gardens". Details in the PDF. The "why not look at other industries/companies" argument is old, tired and makes little sense. Looking at one company/industry does not prevent AGs or DOJ from looking at another.

scarface74 6y ago
So if you slice “the market” granularly enough and squint, then there is a monopoly. If I had a general consumer business, I would much rather use FB advertising because they know more about their users than Google.
- perrylaj 6y ago
  If you had a general consumer business and used both, you'd probably drop Facebook after finding that they don't translate into revenue growth at nearly the same rate. If you didn't, you'd still likely find that your return on investment is far better with Google ad buys. At least, that was my experience with a lifestyle/hobby product. So many leads from Facebook were simply garbage, and the numbers seemed, well, let's just say questionable. Again, your mileage may differ, but FB knowing more about people didn't seem to matter for me. When it came down to it, a dollar spent with Google was far better than a dollar spent with FB.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  That's only you, though. Plus you don't have a consumer business. Not very persuasive. The "choice" described in the paper is not between Facebook and Google, it is between Google and nothing. According the the authors, Facebook does not particpate in the business of ads for the "open web".
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Who cares if FB participates in the “open web” when the majority of adults in the US have a FB Account and probably spend more time on FB than anywhere else?
    - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
      Is this a rhetorical question or does it seek an answer? Assuming the later, academics and people working on these investigations, if the "open web" is the market they are using for their antitrust analysis. If Facebook participated in this market then one could argue that there is some competition. From a footnote in the PDF: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3391913 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3391913
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Again that goes back to slicing a market to fit a narrative and not reality.
        pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
        All antitrust lawsuits contain a narrative. There will be at least two narratives, one of which will be Google's. As for "reality" you would need to be more specific what you mean. What if someone said, "Who cares if they are slicing a market to fit a narrative?" Are you saying the authors who are "slicing the market to fit a narrative" are not allowed to do that? Or are you just saying you do not like that they are doing that? Or both?
      - nl 6y ago
        They are wrong if they think Google is a monopoly on "open web" advertising anyway. Facebook's Audience Network allows you to buy ads on 3rd party (open) websites[1] as does VerizonMedia/Oath [1] https://www.facebook.com/business/marketing/audience-network https://www.facebook.com/business/marketing/audience-network
        6y ago
- lapnitnelav 6y ago
  1) Google, thanks to its acquisitions / strategies is actually all over the web, and has a hand in every single part of the ad tech stack (outside of walled gardens). It's problematic 2) As a consequence of #1 (all those Google Analytics install collecting data) and their properties (YT, Search, etc...) they have excellent data on pretty much every one. As a matter of fact, someone in the industry made a test on Grindr to see what kind of audience quality each player had in the adtech world. Google was the best provider and by a large margin.
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  Why are monopolies a problem? Because they stifle competition? Why is this? Because they control a market or ecosystem to the point where they can very very effectively prevent new players from entering it. If we have an ecosystem that a large number of our citizens are affected by and it is very hard for a new company to compete with a few established players, then there's a risk of many of those citizens getting "the short end" because the companies controlling the ecosystem have no incentive to competitively price anything. I think that's as good a reason as any to consider busting a monopoly.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    None of the big tech companies “control” an ecosystem. Users voluntarily choose that ecosystem because of network effects. Every major tech company’s product has a viable alternative.

scarface74 6y ago

So if you slice “the market” granularly enough and squint, then there is a monopoly. If I had a general consumer business, I would much rather use FB advertising because they know more about their users than Google.

perrylaj 6y ago
If you had a general consumer business and used both, you'd probably drop Facebook after finding that they don't translate into revenue growth at nearly the same rate. If you didn't, you'd still likely find that your return on investment is far better with Google ad buys. At least, that was my experience with a lifestyle/hobby product. So many leads from Facebook were simply garbage, and the numbers seemed, well, let's just say questionable. Again, your mileage may differ, but FB knowing more about people didn't seem to matter for me. When it came down to it, a dollar spent with Google was far better than a dollar spent with FB.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
That's only you, though. Plus you don't have a consumer business. Not very persuasive. The "choice" described in the paper is not between Facebook and Google, it is between Google and nothing. According the the authors, Facebook does not particpate in the business of ads for the "open web".
- scarface74 6y ago
  Who cares if FB participates in the “open web” when the majority of adults in the US have a FB Account and probably spend more time on FB than anywhere else?
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    Is this a rhetorical question or does it seek an answer? Assuming the later, academics and people working on these investigations, if the "open web" is the market they are using for their antitrust analysis. If Facebook participated in this market then one could argue that there is some competition. From a footnote in the PDF: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3391913 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3391913
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Again that goes back to slicing a market to fit a narrative and not reality.
      - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
        All antitrust lawsuits contain a narrative. There will be at least two narratives, one of which will be Google's. As for "reality" you would need to be more specific what you mean. What if someone said, "Who cares if they are slicing a market to fit a narrative?" Are you saying the authors who are "slicing the market to fit a narrative" are not allowed to do that? Or are you just saying you do not like that they are doing that? Or both?
    - nl 6y ago
      They are wrong if they think Google is a monopoly on "open web" advertising anyway. Facebook's Audience Network allows you to buy ads on 3rd party (open) websites[1] as does VerizonMedia/Oath [1] https://www.facebook.com/business/marketing/audience-network https://www.facebook.com/business/marketing/audience-network
      - 6y ago
lapnitnelav 6y ago
1) Google, thanks to its acquisitions / strategies is actually all over the web, and has a hand in every single part of the ad tech stack (outside of walled gardens). It's problematic 2) As a consequence of #1 (all those Google Analytics install collecting data) and their properties (YT, Search, etc...) they have excellent data on pretty much every one. As a matter of fact, someone in the industry made a test on Grindr to see what kind of audience quality each player had in the adtech world. Google was the best provider and by a large margin.
6AA4FD 6y ago
Why are monopolies a problem? Because they stifle competition? Why is this? Because they control a market or ecosystem to the point where they can very very effectively prevent new players from entering it. If we have an ecosystem that a large number of our citizens are affected by and it is very hard for a new company to compete with a few established players, then there's a risk of many of those citizens getting "the short end" because the companies controlling the ecosystem have no incentive to competitively price anything. I think that's as good a reason as any to consider busting a monopoly.
- scarface74 6y ago
  None of the big tech companies “control” an ecosystem. Users voluntarily choose that ecosystem because of network effects. Every major tech company’s product has a viable alternative.