3 ms·
This whole conversation becomes a lot easier if we realize that two things can be true: 1. Facebook has an uncomfortable level of power in advertising, eyeball
by jdgoesmarching 5y ago
This whole conversation becomes a lot easier if we realize that two things can be true:
1. Facebook has an uncomfortable level of power in advertising, eyeballs on screens, and proprietary data
2. Legals definitions that were created over 100 years ago mostly focused on price gouging are not going to address this neatly
- LanceH 5y agoThe whole conversation is a lot easier if you just define Facebook as a monopoly. #1 is assuming the argument, really. #2 is stating that old law doesn't work and implying we need new law to let us do what we want...again, assuming there is a problem, making no attempt to determine whether there is a legal problem
- blsapologist42 5y agoIt's not the job of the judiciary or the FTC to create new laws. If Facebook is not violating current laws there's nothing for them to do, it would require new legislation.
- julienb_sea 5y agoPoint 1 is a dubious complaint. There are other companies with significant presence in "advertising, eyeballs on screens, and proprietary data". Facebook is far from having a monopoly on this. Furthermore, it is far from clear what demonstrable consumer harm is taking place as a result of this "uncomfortable level of power". To point 2: monopolistic behavior resulted in consumer harm and clear negative impacts on the wider economy. The original laws have been reinterpreted for a variety of modern cases (see - antitrust case against Microsoft).