4 ms·

Why Facebook Is Suddenly Afraid of the FTC

128 points by mitchbob 5y ago

nceqs3 5y ago
Nobody is afraid of the FTC, they are a joke of an agency. Read the case they just filed against Facebook. Tiktok isn't a competitor! Really? The FTC has a terrible record on appeal as well.
nikanj 5y ago
Why? Because the US thankfully left behind the era of blatant cronyism, and regulatory agencies are allowed to do their jobs again
- surbas 5y ago
  But for how long?
- the-dude 5y ago
  > left behind the era of blatant cronyism How so?
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  So will the Biden admin handle big tech as forcefully and skillfully as it did Afghanistan?
  - evgen 5y ago
    You mean say what they are going to do and then actually do it? We can hope so.
- mattmanser 5y ago
  I thought the republicans hated Facebook too? I seem to remember after the first time, everyone here was complaining that the initial case the FTC put together was so incoherent there were no surprises it failed. I could be mis-remembering, but that was my general impression though I didn't follow it that closely. Just sounded like incompetence rather than cronyism, but that could be from decades of underfunding.
  - metalliqaz 5y ago
    All of their talk is performative. Most of their voters are found on Facebook. GOP knows that Facebook is by far their most important tool for organizing and rallying their base. They would never admit it, but they also know that Facebook is an important segment of the right wing pipeline, which moves moderate conservatives into the rabid, paranoid, die-hard right wing where they will stay (and vote) forever, which keeps the Overton window moving to the right. Zuckerberg has a well known bias towards the right, and spent a lot of time schmoozing GOP leadership.
    - Applejinx 5y ago
      No, Zuckerberg has a well known bias towards Zuckerberg. What you're seeing is not any sort of well thought out advocacy of right wing ideology: he and Facebook have sometimes been dismayed when they stepped too far in that direction and have gotten used by political operatives (from this or other countries!). Nobody wants to be a pawn in other people's games, least of all Zuckerberg. It looks like Zuckerberg leans to the right because he is leaning away from certain parts of the Left: in particular, he's gonna be extremely wary of anything Elizabeth Warren (or to a lesser extent Bernie, the Squad, etc) has in mind concerning regulation and trustbusting. Zuckerberg's going to treat trustbusters as an existential threat, and I don't believe he has the moral compass to care who he allies with as long as he gets his way. For that reason, Zuckerberg and Facebook can end up allying with outright fascists in hopes of protecting themselves from communists. I don't know if they've got the historical perspective to understand how unwise that is, but I do know they're a key ally for any fascist, anywhere. Right wingers really need Zuck and Facebook, or something like it.
      - germinalphrase 5y ago
        Trustbusting/anti-monopoly are communist?
        ByteJockey 5y ago
        I think that might have been an allusion to Weinmar Germany where industry leaders did end up allying with fascists to protect themselves from communists.
- c048 5y ago
  The era of cronyism and nepotism is very much still alive, even outside of the US. The only difference is the large drop in clear corruption, although don't make the mistake of believing that is anywhere near gone.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  This has yet to be seen. There are good signs, but talk is never cheaper than from a Democratic administration. That being said, I was as surprised as everyone when the FTC refiled rather than turning their hands up and shrugging.
- OneEyedRobot 5y ago
  >Because the US thankfully left behind the era of blatant cronyism Bwahahahahahaha. There really is no way to respond to that statement.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  ...did something big happen that I missed?
techdragon 5y ago
Didn’t even have to scroll before I found the lynchpin. When you reach the size and “market penetration” that Facebook in social networking , Google in search, or Microsoft’s Windows operating system have attained, you can’t go around demanding everyone sign agreements containing clauses that do things like this… > requiring third-party app developers to agree not to create products that could compete with Facebook. That’s textbook anticompetitive behaviour, once you pass that fuzzy threshold that defines market dominance in a legal capacity for the sake of antitrust/anti-competition legislation. Before anyone mentions Twitter. Facebook is dominant in social networking not because Twitter isn’t, but because Twitter and Facebook are different enough it’s unfair to compare them directly and qualitatively, by extension Discord represents a social network platform of a sort, yet it would be hard to say Discord is completing with Twitter… yet they definitely are competing with Facebook because of their internally developed Facebook Messenger and ownership of WhatsApp. Facebook has built or acquired its way into almost all “forms” of social networking and continues to do so any time anything new crops up (see their clubhouse clone) which they are effective at by leveraging their existing position in the rest of social networking, a cycle of behaviour which is synonymous with being dominant in a market. You’re big enough to keep all of it under your control as best you can control it.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  Is Discord competing with Slack? Is Discord competing with Skype? What about Facebook Messenger? Most of my friend group uses Discord exclusively, after trying all the aforementioned options. We don't feel tied to Facebook whatsoever.
  - techdragon 5y ago
    Discord definitely competes with Slack. But it’s in mindshare not customers. Slack targets businesses and the server owner pays, Discord seems allergic to the notion of a more “serious” product and it’s revenue comes from individuals paying a subscription for a bundle of extras that individuals can use in multiple servers across the entirety of Discord. Discord is competing with Skype indirectly, users communicating via voice chat in a private Discord server may have previously used Skype and represent a loss of users for Skype, but at the same time Discord and Skype are targeting their customers differently enough that I don’t see them as “fishing in the same stream” to use an analogy. Facebook Messenger is competing with Discord because it’s always there, if you have Facebook you have Facebook Messenger, “why use something else?” … Facebook are trying to be good enough to keep users active in their apps instead of any one else’s. Discord are trying to be better at group chat use cases but I don’t see the same focus on direct message style chat between individuals in Discord as I see when watching people use Facebook Messenger.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Break up stackoverflow!!! I am serious, it is becoming harmful
- avg_dev 5y ago
  [closed; off-topic]
- testing_1_2_3_4 5y ago
  can you say more about this? I'm curious to hear your reasoning.
  - lawrenceyan 5y ago
    Pretty sure it’s meant to be taken sarcastically.
- kwere 5y ago
  being a profit oriented company it could become harmful. "Dont be evil" exist only in fantasies
justinclift 5y ago
https://archive.ph/c39sT https://archive.ph/c39sT

128 points by mitchbob 5y ago

Nobody is afraid of the FTC, they are a joke of an agency. Read the case they just filed against Facebook. Tiktok isn't a competitor! Really? The FTC has a terrible record on appeal as well.

nikanj 5y ago

Why? Because the US thankfully left behind the era of blatant cronyism, and regulatory agencies are allowed to do their jobs again

surbas 5y ago
But for how long?
the-dude 5y ago
> left behind the era of blatant cronyism How so?
robbedpeter 5y ago
So will the Biden admin handle big tech as forcefully and skillfully as it did Afghanistan?
- evgen 5y ago
  You mean say what they are going to do and then actually do it? We can hope so.
mattmanser 5y ago
I thought the republicans hated Facebook too? I seem to remember after the first time, everyone here was complaining that the initial case the FTC put together was so incoherent there were no surprises it failed. I could be mis-remembering, but that was my general impression though I didn't follow it that closely. Just sounded like incompetence rather than cronyism, but that could be from decades of underfunding.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  All of their talk is performative. Most of their voters are found on Facebook. GOP knows that Facebook is by far their most important tool for organizing and rallying their base. They would never admit it, but they also know that Facebook is an important segment of the right wing pipeline, which moves moderate conservatives into the rabid, paranoid, die-hard right wing where they will stay (and vote) forever, which keeps the Overton window moving to the right. Zuckerberg has a well known bias towards the right, and spent a lot of time schmoozing GOP leadership.
  - Applejinx 5y ago
    No, Zuckerberg has a well known bias towards Zuckerberg. What you're seeing is not any sort of well thought out advocacy of right wing ideology: he and Facebook have sometimes been dismayed when they stepped too far in that direction and have gotten used by political operatives (from this or other countries!). Nobody wants to be a pawn in other people's games, least of all Zuckerberg. It looks like Zuckerberg leans to the right because he is leaning away from certain parts of the Left: in particular, he's gonna be extremely wary of anything Elizabeth Warren (or to a lesser extent Bernie, the Squad, etc) has in mind concerning regulation and trustbusting. Zuckerberg's going to treat trustbusters as an existential threat, and I don't believe he has the moral compass to care who he allies with as long as he gets his way. For that reason, Zuckerberg and Facebook can end up allying with outright fascists in hopes of protecting themselves from communists. I don't know if they've got the historical perspective to understand how unwise that is, but I do know they're a key ally for any fascist, anywhere. Right wingers really need Zuck and Facebook, or something like it.
    - germinalphrase 5y ago
      Trustbusting/anti-monopoly are communist?
      - ByteJockey 5y ago
        I think that might have been an allusion to Weinmar Germany where industry leaders did end up allying with fascists to protect themselves from communists.
c048 5y ago
The era of cronyism and nepotism is very much still alive, even outside of the US. The only difference is the large drop in clear corruption, although don't make the mistake of believing that is anywhere near gone.
pessimizer 5y ago
This has yet to be seen. There are good signs, but talk is never cheaper than from a Democratic administration. That being said, I was as surprised as everyone when the FTC refiled rather than turning their hands up and shrugging.
OneEyedRobot 5y ago
>Because the US thankfully left behind the era of blatant cronyism Bwahahahahahaha. There really is no way to respond to that statement.
pope_meat 5y ago
...did something big happen that I missed?

techdragon 5y ago

Didn’t even have to scroll before I found the lynchpin. When you reach the size and “market penetration” that Facebook in social networking , Google in search, or Microsoft’s Windows operating system have attained, you can’t go around demanding everyone sign agreements containing clauses that do things like this… > requiring third-party app developers to agree not to create products that could compete with Facebook. That’s textbook anticompetitive behaviour, once you pass that fuzzy threshold that defines market dominance in a legal capacity for the sake of antitrust/anti-competition legislation. Before anyone mentions Twitter. Facebook is dominant in social networking not because Twitter isn’t, but because Twitter and Facebook are different enough it’s unfair to compare them directly and qualitatively, by extension Discord represents a social network platform of a sort, yet it would be hard to say Discord is completing with Twitter… yet they definitely are competing with Facebook because of their internally developed Facebook Messenger and ownership of WhatsApp. Facebook has built or acquired its way into almost all “forms” of social networking and continues to do so any time anything new crops up (see their clubhouse clone) which they are effective at by leveraging their existing position in the rest of social networking, a cycle of behaviour which is synonymous with being dominant in a market. You’re big enough to keep all of it under your control as best you can control it.

iamstupidsimple 5y ago
Is Discord competing with Slack? Is Discord competing with Skype? What about Facebook Messenger? Most of my friend group uses Discord exclusively, after trying all the aforementioned options. We don't feel tied to Facebook whatsoever.
- techdragon 5y ago
  Discord definitely competes with Slack. But it’s in mindshare not customers. Slack targets businesses and the server owner pays, Discord seems allergic to the notion of a more “serious” product and it’s revenue comes from individuals paying a subscription for a bundle of extras that individuals can use in multiple servers across the entirety of Discord. Discord is competing with Skype indirectly, users communicating via voice chat in a private Discord server may have previously used Skype and represent a loss of users for Skype, but at the same time Discord and Skype are targeting their customers differently enough that I don’t see them as “fishing in the same stream” to use an analogy. Facebook Messenger is competing with Discord because it’s always there, if you have Facebook you have Facebook Messenger, “why use something else?” … Facebook are trying to be good enough to keep users active in their apps instead of any one else’s. Discord are trying to be better at group chat use cases but I don’t see the same focus on direct message style chat between individuals in Discord as I see when watching people use Facebook Messenger.

AzzieElbab 5y ago

Break up stackoverflow!!! I am serious, it is becoming harmful

avg_dev 5y ago
[closed; off-topic]
testing_1_2_3_4 5y ago
can you say more about this? I'm curious to hear your reasoning.
- lawrenceyan 5y ago
  Pretty sure it’s meant to be taken sarcastically.
kwere 5y ago
being a profit oriented company it could become harmful. "Dont be evil" exist only in fantasies

justinclift 5y ago

https://archive.ph/c39sT https://archive.ph/c39sT