4 ms·

What is the violation? I'm serious. If I post a link to a target product page on walmart it will be taken down. I'm sure amazon does the same. Do business have

What is the violation? I'm serious. If I post a link to a target product page on walmart it will be taken down. I'm sure amazon does the same. Do business have to allow you to promote their competitors? Such a weird thing for regulators to be chasing - there seems to be so many more obvious issues than this. Is this a political winner - in other words, does the average person think I can put of Burger King flyers in a McDonalds store?

Eighth 5y ago
Sounds anti-competitive in the UK. Using dominant market power to censor.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  That is a weird UK rule then. In the US the common issues are things like tying, predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, loyalty discounts, bundling etc. Allowing competitors onto your own platform is an unusual requirement in UK I think - I haven't seen a case like that in US but don't follow closely.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Communication platforms are a bit different. Nobody would be okay with Comcast blocking the signup page or mentions of Google Fiber or your municipal broadbrand network, or Verizon disconnecting your call if you mention AT&T.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      I think folks really do not understand the difference between Verizon calls (regulated under common carrier rules) and Facebook (a social network). Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks. Even review platforms which are a bit more communication in nature block posting other sites reviews.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        > Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks. I don't see how that makes it legal. Herey other examples of potential actions that would also clearly qualify as illegal anti-competive behavior: Microsoft could decide to block the download pages for Chrome and Firefoz from being shown in IE. Google could block results related to Bing in their search engine or browser. I don't see how this behavior by Facebook is any different. If it can be shown that this was done deliberately by Facebook, I have little doubt that it would also qualify as anti-competive behavior.
        whoknowswhat11 5y ago
        Microsoft does steer you away from Chrome. When you first search on bing for chrome downloads they will put up a big edge promo above the result. After you download they will pop up a box asking if you are sure you want to switch as edge is "Faster and more secure". The problem for mastadon is it has a TON of content that is against facebook policies. So facebook can simply say - users are reporting this crap as spam - we've blocked it. Done.
      - qwytw 5y ago
        Yes Facebook is clearly closer to Walmart or McDonalds than to an internet provider. Yet section 230 applies to ISPs and FB but not to Walmart...
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    It's always worth remembering that the European and American legal philosophy on anticompetitive markets are different, and lead to different conclusions. European law tends to favor maximizing competitors. American law tends to favor maximizing consumer value. At first glance, these can be considered equivalent, but they differ at the margins (which is why, for example, Amazon keeps getting hit with antitrust in France but not in the US).
loeg 5y ago
I doubt Facebook even thinks of Mastodon as a competitor.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  No doubt - but there was also a big move of Gab and some other more right wing communities to Mastodon I think at one point - be curious to know if the Mastodon links are all showing as high scoring in whatever generic facebook system is being used. Could easily imagine some involve links to stuff facebook isn't interested in pushing.
  - playguardin 5y ago
    Gab and Torba are awesome. Crusaders against the tech hegemony
    - rvz 5y ago
      Well they already realised that early and so they built their own social networks and they are still up and running today. This 'censoring' should be unsurprising to everyone here. I thought what happened to alternative social networks was a warning to show that not only they can do it to anyone but it shows how anti-competitive they really are. What happened here to this person mentioning Mastodon is no different but was like 1% of what Facebook and many other private platforms can really do.
Nevermark 5y ago
Walmart is not a site devoted to helping users created and share their content, and they are open about their moderation rules, a good ethical standard. Walmart's legalese: > C. Prohibited Content > * contains advertisements, solicitations, or spam links to other web sites or individuals, without prior written permission from Walmart; https://www.walmart.com/help/article/walmart-com-terms-of-use/f25b207926d84d79b57e6ae2327bbf12 https://www.walmart.com/help/article/walmart-com-terms-of-us... Facebook on the other hand, promotes itself for creating and sharing user content. If it then moderates in ways that are not disclosed, opaque, and with little recourse, their deceptive behavior is neither ethic or in line with how they promote themselves as a service.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
I remember reading an article about censorship in China, someone talking to his friend on the phone mentioned a particular term that the government didn't like, and the line got disconnected a second later. Was it a coincidence, or was someone listening, or was it computers? Nowadays most of our communication channels are owned by corporations. Are you okay that they get to decide what we're allowed to talk about? Zoom for example banned meetings talking about the Tiananmen Square massacre; You can't post links to The Pirate Bay in private chats on Facebook... on private chat! And this coming from me who's quite okay with Twitter banning Trump and other idiots off their platform.
mrpf1ster 5y ago
Facebook is an entirely different kind of business than Walmart or Amazon. Facebook (and social media in general) is essentially a public forum and comes with the expectations of such since these companies control such a large part of internet discourse. If all of them said "we won't allow anyone to talk about any of our competitors on our site" then it strikes me as a company using their dominance to silence other players in the market, i.e. anti competitive behavior.

Eighth 5y ago

Sounds anti-competitive in the UK. Using dominant market power to censor.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
That is a weird UK rule then. In the US the common issues are things like tying, predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, loyalty discounts, bundling etc. Allowing competitors onto your own platform is an unusual requirement in UK I think - I haven't seen a case like that in US but don't follow closely.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Communication platforms are a bit different. Nobody would be okay with Comcast blocking the signup page or mentions of Google Fiber or your municipal broadbrand network, or Verizon disconnecting your call if you mention AT&T.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    I think folks really do not understand the difference between Verizon calls (regulated under common carrier rules) and Facebook (a social network). Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks. Even review platforms which are a bit more communication in nature block posting other sites reviews.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks. I don't see how that makes it legal. Herey other examples of potential actions that would also clearly qualify as illegal anti-competive behavior: Microsoft could decide to block the download pages for Chrome and Firefoz from being shown in IE. Google could block results related to Bing in their search engine or browser. I don't see how this behavior by Facebook is any different. If it can be shown that this was done deliberately by Facebook, I have little doubt that it would also qualify as anti-competive behavior.
      - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
        Microsoft does steer you away from Chrome. When you first search on bing for chrome downloads they will put up a big edge promo above the result. After you download they will pop up a box asking if you are sure you want to switch as edge is "Faster and more secure". The problem for mastadon is it has a TON of content that is against facebook policies. So facebook can simply say - users are reporting this crap as spam - we've blocked it. Done.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      Yes Facebook is clearly closer to Walmart or McDonalds than to an internet provider. Yet section 230 applies to ISPs and FB but not to Walmart...
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It's always worth remembering that the European and American legal philosophy on anticompetitive markets are different, and lead to different conclusions. European law tends to favor maximizing competitors. American law tends to favor maximizing consumer value. At first glance, these can be considered equivalent, but they differ at the margins (which is why, for example, Amazon keeps getting hit with antitrust in France but not in the US).

loeg 5y ago

I doubt Facebook even thinks of Mastodon as a competitor.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
No doubt - but there was also a big move of Gab and some other more right wing communities to Mastodon I think at one point - be curious to know if the Mastodon links are all showing as high scoring in whatever generic facebook system is being used. Could easily imagine some involve links to stuff facebook isn't interested in pushing.
- playguardin 5y ago
  Gab and Torba are awesome. Crusaders against the tech hegemony
  - rvz 5y ago
    Well they already realised that early and so they built their own social networks and they are still up and running today. This 'censoring' should be unsurprising to everyone here. I thought what happened to alternative social networks was a warning to show that not only they can do it to anyone but it shows how anti-competitive they really are. What happened here to this person mentioning Mastodon is no different but was like 1% of what Facebook and many other private platforms can really do.

Nevermark 5y ago

Walmart is not a site devoted to helping users created and share their content, and they are open about their moderation rules, a good ethical standard. Walmart's legalese: > C. Prohibited Content > * contains advertisements, solicitations, or spam links to other web sites or individuals, without prior written permission from Walmart; https://www.walmart.com/help/article/walmart-com-terms-of-use/f25b207926d84d79b57e6ae2327bbf12 https://www.walmart.com/help/article/walmart-com-terms-of-us... Facebook on the other hand, promotes itself for creating and sharing user content. If it then moderates in ways that are not disclosed, opaque, and with little recourse, their deceptive behavior is neither ethic or in line with how they promote themselves as a service.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

I remember reading an article about censorship in China, someone talking to his friend on the phone mentioned a particular term that the government didn't like, and the line got disconnected a second later. Was it a coincidence, or was someone listening, or was it computers? Nowadays most of our communication channels are owned by corporations. Are you okay that they get to decide what we're allowed to talk about? Zoom for example banned meetings talking about the Tiananmen Square massacre; You can't post links to The Pirate Bay in private chats on Facebook... on private chat! And this coming from me who's quite okay with Twitter banning Trump and other idiots off their platform.

mrpf1ster 5y ago

Facebook is an entirely different kind of business than Walmart or Amazon. Facebook (and social media in general) is essentially a public forum and comes with the expectations of such since these companies control such a large part of internet discourse. If all of them said "we won't allow anyone to talk about any of our competitors on our site" then it strikes me as a company using their dominance to silence other players in the market, i.e. anti competitive behavior.