7 ms·

Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies, while this is a demand side monopoly, and would be a tricky case for anti trust to prove. If the ma

Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies, while this is a demand side monopoly, and would be a tricky case for anti trust to prove. If the mandate is to do what is best for customers, then the best solution I can think of is to let FB function as one entity but toughen the norms on data collection. The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's graph. A good example is how Instagram grew with the import of Twitter social graph, and when it came to Facebook, it grew further because it could import the connections that Facebook already had access to. In the name of privacy, it is a good idea to block that, but that essentially inhibits any other social network growing and becoming big. If such an export is available and allowed (while satisfying the privacy concerns), this could enable competition in the social space. As a gatekeeper, Facebook has every intention not to allow any usage to the graph. The idea about breaking up of social networks would not do any good. You would eventually have to solve multiple problems (and again and again) as the broken up entities either die or become dominant in a big enough niche. Even if you break up Instagram or Whatsapp from Facebook, they are still monopolies in their domains. Insta might not be able to survive since they used the Facebook's ad delivery intelligence, while Whatsapp would be a dominant monopoly in messaging nonetheless. This is a landmark case if brought on, but needs to be dealt very smartly, if they want to actually solve problems and set the right precedents.

loceng 6y ago
Laws need to be updated to account for the network effects of the data lock position, where you, your data, and network are prevented from easily being mobile. Your digital data should be considered to be equivalent to you having built a house, a big asset, but now you have a big choice to make: abandon it because the state is doing some sketchy things that you don't agree with or want to support by the taxes collected, or not. The lack of data portability, mobility of users, is the only reason Facebook and its leadership could repeatedly be a bad actor and continue to scale as it did; by data portability I also mean that all data should also maintain cross-linking attribution, so if anyone in your network also leaves Facebook to join platform X instead - that data can be imported and aligned, synchronized properly on the other platform so it doesn't get broken. None of the incumbents are going to voluntarily to implement this.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Have you ever thought that the reason Facebook is successful is because people choose to use it? No one is forced to use social media.
  - blocked_again 6y ago
    Lol. Go and read Hooked book. The shitty things Silicon Valley does to keep users addicted to their social media apps would blow your mind. Facebook is a net negative to the society. The reason people are using their products are because they are addicted. Not because it's making their life bettter. It's like drugs. Atleast the drug companies have ethics to not give you some unless you continue paying money. Fucking Facebook want users scrolling their shitty feeds and clicking on notifications all day so that Zuckerberg and VCs can buy more yatchs.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      And that could describe, alcohol, weed, sweets, gambling....
      - eloisant 6y ago
        Yes, that why those things are either illegal or heavily regulated.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Sweets are heavily regulated?
        blocked_again 6y ago
        It's heavily regulated by parents.
        scarface74 6y ago
op03 6y ago
Nov 3 will decide a lot of stuff. I would guess if Trump returns and the Dems take the House and the Senate, expect all nuance and smartness to go out the window.
nabla9 6y ago
>Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies I don't think this is true. The idea that antitrust is only about supply and consumer benefit is extremely limited view. It came in flavor in the US late-1970's and it's known as "Chicago School of Antitrust Law". The defining book of that school is Robert Bork's 'The Antitrust Paradox' (1978).
- ankit219 6y ago
  I meant in more of a generic sense (as to where they were usually applied) than the specific definition of the law. Will definitely read the book if I can find it somewhere. Not based out of US, so might be difficult to find.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  I wonder were there any historical precidents of antitrust actions taken specifically when there wasn't control over suppply either horizontally or vertically resulting in the end of the chain being unable to compete. Not taking this as evidence of "it never existed" but genuinely wondering if there was ever an obscure bit of precedence by "pure quality". Microsoft's privileging of Internet explorer and its were a closer example of just anti-competitive but they also had the overwhelming computer market share sold. I don't recall of any cases where so much as a patent was revoked just because it lead to far more market dominance than expected from the limited time. Even when it utterly devestated entire industries like what cloth mills did to the literal cottage industry weavers.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    I don't think where this is coming from, but you seem to imply that there is case now with FB.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> If the mandate is to do what is best for customers, then the best solution I can think of is to let FB function as one entity but toughen the norms on data collection. The data collection problem is basically independent of the antitrust problem. The only real overlap is that you can't avoid the data collection when the service is a monopoly you can't avoid doing business with, but the general solution -- more competition -- solves that anyway. What's really needed is this: > The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's graph. Adversarial interoperability shares the network effect. It lets competitors bootstrap off the incumbent instead of starting from scratch, so then you get more competitors.
- ankit219 6y ago
  Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service. Even a small social network is sort of a monopoly if all of your friends and family is on that network. That way, even the competitors wont solve the data collection part. I am assuming unless the rules are in place, every one would just keep collecting maximum data. Adversarial interoperability also means there is incentive for both the incumbent and competitor to keep innovating to keep the audience there (and be mindful of newer ones emerging) and hence the best for the customer.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service. The point is that data collection is just problem #8345732473 on the great scroll of reasons why monopolies are bad. It doesn't cause the monopoly and it isn't a significant problem if you make the monopoly go away.

loceng 6y ago

Laws need to be updated to account for the network effects of the data lock position, where you, your data, and network are prevented from easily being mobile. Your digital data should be considered to be equivalent to you having built a house, a big asset, but now you have a big choice to make: abandon it because the state is doing some sketchy things that you don't agree with or want to support by the taxes collected, or not. The lack of data portability, mobility of users, is the only reason Facebook and its leadership could repeatedly be a bad actor and continue to scale as it did; by data portability I also mean that all data should also maintain cross-linking attribution, so if anyone in your network also leaves Facebook to join platform X instead - that data can be imported and aligned, synchronized properly on the other platform so it doesn't get broken. None of the incumbents are going to voluntarily to implement this.

scarface74 6y ago
Have you ever thought that the reason Facebook is successful is because people choose to use it? No one is forced to use social media.
- blocked_again 6y ago
  Lol. Go and read Hooked book. The shitty things Silicon Valley does to keep users addicted to their social media apps would blow your mind. Facebook is a net negative to the society. The reason people are using their products are because they are addicted. Not because it's making their life bettter. It's like drugs. Atleast the drug companies have ethics to not give you some unless you continue paying money. Fucking Facebook want users scrolling their shitty feeds and clicking on notifications all day so that Zuckerberg and VCs can buy more yatchs.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And that could describe, alcohol, weed, sweets, gambling....
    - eloisant 6y ago
      Yes, that why those things are either illegal or heavily regulated.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Sweets are heavily regulated?
        blocked_again 6y ago
        It's heavily regulated by parents.
        scarface74 6y ago

op03 6y ago

Nov 3 will decide a lot of stuff. I would guess if Trump returns and the Dems take the House and the Senate, expect all nuance and smartness to go out the window.

nabla9 6y ago

>Antitrust laws were always based on supply side monopolies I don't think this is true. The idea that antitrust is only about supply and consumer benefit is extremely limited view. It came in flavor in the US late-1970's and it's known as "Chicago School of Antitrust Law". The defining book of that school is Robert Bork's 'The Antitrust Paradox' (1978).

ankit219 6y ago
I meant in more of a generic sense (as to where they were usually applied) than the specific definition of the law. Will definitely read the book if I can find it somewhere. Not based out of US, so might be difficult to find.
Nasrudith 6y ago
I wonder were there any historical precidents of antitrust actions taken specifically when there wasn't control over suppply either horizontally or vertically resulting in the end of the chain being unable to compete. Not taking this as evidence of "it never existed" but genuinely wondering if there was ever an obscure bit of precedence by "pure quality". Microsoft's privileging of Internet explorer and its were a closer example of just anti-competitive but they also had the overwhelming computer market share sold. I don't recall of any cases where so much as a patent was revoked just because it lead to far more market dominance than expected from the limited time. Even when it utterly devestated entire industries like what cloth mills did to the literal cottage industry weavers.
- nabla9 6y ago
  I don't think where this is coming from, but you seem to imply that there is case now with FB.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> If the mandate is to do what is best for customers, then the best solution I can think of is to let FB function as one entity but toughen the norms on data collection. The data collection problem is basically independent of the antitrust problem. The only real overlap is that you can't avoid the data collection when the service is a monopoly you can't avoid doing business with, but the general solution -- more competition -- solves that anyway. What's really needed is this: > The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's graph. Adversarial interoperability shares the network effect. It lets competitors bootstrap off the incumbent instead of starting from scratch, so then you get more competitors.

ankit219 6y ago
Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service. Even a small social network is sort of a monopoly if all of your friends and family is on that network. That way, even the competitors wont solve the data collection part. I am assuming unless the rules are in place, every one would just keep collecting maximum data. Adversarial interoperability also means there is incentive for both the incumbent and competitor to keep innovating to keep the audience there (and be mindful of newer ones emerging) and hence the best for the customer.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Data collection becomes an anti trust issue because as you mentioned, you cant really opt out of the data collection part while continuing to use the service. The point is that data collection is just problem #8345732473 on the great scroll of reasons why monopolies are bad. It doesn't cause the monopoly and it isn't a significant problem if you make the monopoly go away.