4 ms·

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

by Eighth 5y ago

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).

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

by Eighth 5y ago

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

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).