3 ms·

Secret talks? Conspiracy. Between two market leaders. To settle their differences and thereby reduce direct competition. I understand completely why this wa

Secret talks? Conspiracy. Between two market leaders. To settle their differences and thereby reduce direct competition. I understand completely why this was kept quiet. I cannot see any firm dates, but it looks like most of these reported discussions were in 2017-2018, 4+ years back, conveniently long enough enjoy SOL protection against antitrust actions. Who really wrote this piece? Who paid for it? SOL citation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap1-sec15b.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html...

charcircuit 4y ago
>To settle their differences and thereby reduce direct competition How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be.
- eganist 4y ago
  > How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law That's generally the threshold, and without saying as much (in fact, the author of the article seems to miss this), the article suggests that the talks in question came close to cresting that boundary.
  - cjensen 4y ago
    If Marriott and Best Foods work together to increase both profits, that's not an anti-trust violation just because they work together. The article you cite enumerates a number of categories of violations, but you haven't identified which one you think "working together" inherently violates. My guess is you are talking about Monopolization, but since neither Facebook nor Apple is a monopoly, and since Facebook and Apple do not compete against each other, I'm not sure how that fits.
    - chottocharaii 4y ago
      'monopoly' is a shorthand for an unacceptable abuse of market power It is not being used literally. Of course FB & Facebook are not 'literal' monopoloies Your pedantry does not detract from the point being made by the comment above
      - cjensen 4y ago
        Are you trying to say that the poster I replied to, who specifically linked to a Wikipedia article about US Anti-trust Law, was not literally referring to US Anti-trust Law? And that I am being pedantic for assuming the parent poster meant what they said about the law they linked to? Did you perhaps mean to respond to a different comment?
mrxd 4y ago
> I understand completely why this was kept quiet. Are you suggesting that Apple and Facebook normally have these kinds of discussions in public? Because that is not at all the case. Possibly there is something nefarious going on here. But the fact these talks were secret means nothing, since all talks between companies are secret by default.
- quitit 4y ago
  Right now there is a desperate PR push to make Apple look like they wanted Facebook's ad business and that tracked ads really aren't all that bad. It seems part of a larger campaign to force apple to drop tracking protections by making these efforts appear not as privacy protection, but rather an anti-competitive strategy to boost their own ads sales. HN is falling over themselves in the process. Anyone that tells you that tracked ads are just about matching your preferences is lying to you on purpose.
  - ksec 4y ago
    The same HN is telling me all Ads are evil, one could argue they are delusional? Even though I am glad this whole Anti-Ad thing is finally receiving some push back, I do agree and I am slightly suspicious of some PR push behind it. But I will give them benefits of doubt because it could also be people finally waking up to Apple's insane Hypocrisy.
    - quitit 4y ago
      It’s not isolated to Apple. Seeing it against Duck duck go as well. For both it’s the same faulty arguments that are built around a false equivalence that all types of data collection are the same and aggressively downplaying the harm of tracked ad networks. They also happen to be full of technical mistakes that are incorrect enough to be intentional lying.
tehwebguy 4y ago
Conspiracy to do what, have less privacy violations? Also if people were injured by this and are just finding out about it now the clock probably just started.

charcircuit 4y ago

>To settle their differences and thereby reduce direct competition How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be.

eganist 4y ago
> How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law That's generally the threshold, and without saying as much (in fact, the author of the article seems to miss this), the article suggests that the talks in question came close to cresting that boundary.
- cjensen 4y ago
  If Marriott and Best Foods work together to increase both profits, that's not an anti-trust violation just because they work together. The article you cite enumerates a number of categories of violations, but you haven't identified which one you think "working together" inherently violates. My guess is you are talking about Monopolization, but since neither Facebook nor Apple is a monopoly, and since Facebook and Apple do not compete against each other, I'm not sure how that fits.
  - chottocharaii 4y ago
    'monopoly' is a shorthand for an unacceptable abuse of market power It is not being used literally. Of course FB & Facebook are not 'literal' monopoloies Your pedantry does not detract from the point being made by the comment above
    - cjensen 4y ago
      Are you trying to say that the poster I replied to, who specifically linked to a Wikipedia article about US Anti-trust Law, was not literally referring to US Anti-trust Law? And that I am being pedantic for assuming the parent poster meant what they said about the law they linked to? Did you perhaps mean to respond to a different comment?

mrxd 4y ago

> I understand completely why this was kept quiet. Are you suggesting that Apple and Facebook normally have these kinds of discussions in public? Because that is not at all the case. Possibly there is something nefarious going on here. But the fact these talks were secret means nothing, since all talks between companies are secret by default.

quitit 4y ago
Right now there is a desperate PR push to make Apple look like they wanted Facebook's ad business and that tracked ads really aren't all that bad. It seems part of a larger campaign to force apple to drop tracking protections by making these efforts appear not as privacy protection, but rather an anti-competitive strategy to boost their own ads sales. HN is falling over themselves in the process. Anyone that tells you that tracked ads are just about matching your preferences is lying to you on purpose.
- ksec 4y ago
  The same HN is telling me all Ads are evil, one could argue they are delusional? Even though I am glad this whole Anti-Ad thing is finally receiving some push back, I do agree and I am slightly suspicious of some PR push behind it. But I will give them benefits of doubt because it could also be people finally waking up to Apple's insane Hypocrisy.
  - quitit 4y ago
    It’s not isolated to Apple. Seeing it against Duck duck go as well. For both it’s the same faulty arguments that are built around a false equivalence that all types of data collection are the same and aggressively downplaying the harm of tracked ad networks. They also happen to be full of technical mistakes that are incorrect enough to be intentional lying.

tehwebguy 4y ago

Conspiracy to do what, have less privacy violations? Also if people were injured by this and are just finding out about it now the clock probably just started.