4 ms·

This argument is completely without merit. Facebook makes money from mining the data you generate while using their platform. If you're not using _their_ plat

This argument is completely without merit. Facebook makes money from mining the data you generate while using their platform. If you're not using _their_ platform, you're not making _them_ money. To combat WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook tried the Facebook App. It didn't work (people still used WhatsApp and Instagram a great deal more than the facebook app). Instead of figuring out why, they just bought the platforms out and forcefully integrated them. Which clearly violates the Clayton Act. "But why didn't the FTC intervene" because old people don't understand tech and new things will always confuddle the outgoing gatekeepers. Those purchases gave them data they previously didn't have access to. Which gave them MUCH more control in the advertising market. I expect boomers and the like to not understand this, but to hear "facebook isn't a monopoly" on HN is fascinating. How else do you describe the centralisation of the internet via Google and Facebook? Innovation? Really? Despite all the evidence in leaks and statements?

htormey 5y ago
Can you explain why you think these integrations violate the Clayton act (I.e are unfair competition)? Google exists and Amazon and Microsoft have growing advertising businesses. All of which have vast throves of integrated consumer data.
- tetris11 5y ago
  IANAL, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914 > There are 4 sections of the bill that proposed substantive changes in the antitrust laws by way of supplementing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890: > mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);
vineyardmike 5y ago
They bought instagram long before they were a proven success. They were instrumental in making instagram a successful business. its not clear that insta would be what it is today without fb. > But why didn't the FTC intervene The US did review the case, and determine that insta was not a risk. Its easy in hindsight to say that its obviously a miss, but again, we don't actually know that insta would be big today if it wasn't for the fb resources and industry knowledge they brought. > Which gave them MUCH more control in the advertising market. What market share do they have in advertising? Like a number, because between Google, and Amazon, and all the other major networks (oracle, adobe, msft, apple, etc) i can't imagine its so high they can exert a dominating force. > I expect boomers and the like to not understand this I'm young and love to disparage old people and the internet, but really age is not an indicator of people understanding things, even the internet. Plenty of boomers "get it", and maybe get business more than some hn commenters... ;) > but to hear "facebook isn't a monopoly" on HN is fascinating Review the source linked. It explains clearly that fb doesn't have a dominant market share. Thats what a monopoly is. Its a very HN source. > How else do you describe the centralisation of the internet via Google and Facebook? Innovation? Really? Despite all the evidence in leaks and statements? 1 ) this is quite an emotional response, that does nothing for the legal basis of a monopoly. Emotional responses are fine, centralization can be scary, but its not a legal response. 2) I wouldn't call it innovation per se, nor would i call it good, per se. BUT i wouldn't call it monopoly either. aside, i wonder if the internet is really "centralizing" resulting in fewer locations online, or if some locations have just grown so much bigger than others - are there fewer nodes in the graph over time, or did some nodes just grow a lot more. --- --- --- Also, not to nit-pick but... 1. Whats app does not collect much user data, so it doesn't really help the "we make money off your data" argument. 2. Using a fb site does not mean you can't use other social networks. They don't compete in a "rivalrous" way - meaning using insta doesn't stop you from using tikTok or youtube or any other network in addition to fb.

htormey 5y ago

Can you explain why you think these integrations violate the Clayton act (I.e are unfair competition)? Google exists and Amazon and Microsoft have growing advertising businesses. All of which have vast throves of integrated consumer data.

tetris11 5y ago
IANAL, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914 > There are 4 sections of the bill that proposed substantive changes in the antitrust laws by way of supplementing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890: > mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

vineyardmike 5y ago

They bought instagram long before they were a proven success. They were instrumental in making instagram a successful business. its not clear that insta would be what it is today without fb. > But why didn't the FTC intervene The US did review the case, and determine that insta was not a risk. Its easy in hindsight to say that its obviously a miss, but again, we don't actually know that insta would be big today if it wasn't for the fb resources and industry knowledge they brought. > Which gave them MUCH more control in the advertising market. What market share do they have in advertising? Like a number, because between Google, and Amazon, and all the other major networks (oracle, adobe, msft, apple, etc) i can't imagine its so high they can exert a dominating force. > I expect boomers and the like to not understand this I'm young and love to disparage old people and the internet, but really age is not an indicator of people understanding things, even the internet. Plenty of boomers "get it", and maybe get business more than some hn commenters... ;) > but to hear "facebook isn't a monopoly" on HN is fascinating Review the source linked. It explains clearly that fb doesn't have a dominant market share. Thats what a monopoly is. Its a very HN source. > How else do you describe the centralisation of the internet via Google and Facebook? Innovation? Really? Despite all the evidence in leaks and statements? 1 ) this is quite an emotional response, that does nothing for the legal basis of a monopoly. Emotional responses are fine, centralization can be scary, but its not a legal response. 2) I wouldn't call it innovation per se, nor would i call it good, per se. BUT i wouldn't call it monopoly either. aside, i wonder if the internet is really "centralizing" resulting in fewer locations online, or if some locations have just grown so much bigger than others - are there fewer nodes in the graph over time, or did some nodes just grow a lot more. --- --- --- Also, not to nit-pick but... 1. Whats app does not collect much user data, so it doesn't really help the "we make money off your data" argument. 2. Using a fb site does not mean you can't use other social networks. They don't compete in a "rivalrous" way - meaning using insta doesn't stop you from using tikTok or youtube or any other network in addition to fb.