3 ms·

Exactly! So what is anti competitive here?

karaterobot 2y ago
The government has alleged that Meta's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram was done to reduce competition. Nothing has been established as anti-competitive or not yet, that's why it's in court. Evidence from both sides will be presented. I'm not sure how else to answer that question.
- tyre 2y ago
  Zuckerberg in writing said that instagram was purchased to prevent them from competing. Many things have been established.
  - lazide 2y ago
    It’s perfectly fine to do anti-competitive actions. They’re fundamental to most businesses survival, actually. It’s not fine to do them to create, expand, protect, attempt to create, etc. monopolies. So essentially, you can be anti-competitive only to the point where you’ve been too successful at it, then it’s bad.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Anti-competitive behaviours such as price-fixing and over-broad no-compete clauses can be problematic even without a monopoly.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Fair point, though they typically only become problematic (aka are acted on/legislated against) when they significantly distort the market to a degree people start really complaining about it. Usually due to either a monopsony/cartel/monopoly which controls most of the market doing it successfully. If the companies in the lower 5% of a market price fix or the like, no one usually cares. Even 20%, usually. The Sherman antitrust act speaks about ‘restraints of trade’ because it has to actually restrain trade, which requires a significant degree of control - which a successful/actual monopoly, monopsony, or cartel can do. Technically, even attempting to do it is illegal, but going after every company that tries has a bit of the same feel as locking up every single toddler because they took a swing at someone or threatened them with their cute little stubby kid scissors. It’s a waste of resources, not in anyone’s interest, stops behavior most people would consider necessary/healthy to some degree, causes much worse problems than it solves, etc. On the other hand, locking up a successful serial killer is just good public policy. The difference between the two is more a matter of the success and effectiveness of their tactics, not really intent.
        n4r9 2y ago
        Generally agree. There are some subtle edge cases like price dumping, but even that's still ultimately an attempt to gain market dominance.
  - the_clarence 2y ago
    Its not the same as forcing them to shut down or say yes. They wanted one less competitor yes, as every company does, but they didn't prevent the company from growing and existing.
stackskipton 2y ago
Facebook knew that Instagram was up and coming and instead of competing, it just bought it. You can read more about initial complaint and following the trial here: https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-on-the-stand-the-trial https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-on-the-stand-the...
- DecentShoes 2y ago
  Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions?
  - callc 2y ago
    If the purpose of an acquisition is to quash competition that is bad. Monopolies are bad. Another purpose of acquisitions is to acquire a new capability that you could not do in house that you do not already compete on.
    - dmix 2y ago
      Instagram was and still is in a highly competitive market. Previously it was Snapchat at the time and now it's Tiktok. Not to mention YouTube shorts, Reddit, Twitter, and every other service focused on video and pictures. I don't think any social media consumer is lacking choice.
      - callc 2y ago
        Regardless of how much “choice” there is in a market, FB made an anti-competitive play. Now we all have n-1 choices. The question of whether society should allow companies to perform anti-competitive actions should not be “will we be left with enough choices?”, but should be “is this an anti-competitive action?”
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions? No, it's not. It is not normal or usual. Not even in the tech industry.
ezfe 2y ago
Buying a rising product to make sure you control it instead of needing to compete with it is not legal when you're the size of Facebook.
- the_clarence 2y ago
  Isnt this inviting to competition? You can make a big exit by competing and getting acquired
  - ezfe 2y ago
    Well - it invites people creating big promises and then selling, which doesn't help the consumer.
    - the_clarence 2y ago
      IMO the consumer wins if there's a single social network

The government has alleged that Meta's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram was done to reduce competition. Nothing has been established as anti-competitive or not yet, that's why it's in court. Evidence from both sides will be presented. I'm not sure how else to answer that question.

tyre 2y ago
Zuckerberg in writing said that instagram was purchased to prevent them from competing. Many things have been established.
- lazide 2y ago
  It’s perfectly fine to do anti-competitive actions. They’re fundamental to most businesses survival, actually. It’s not fine to do them to create, expand, protect, attempt to create, etc. monopolies. So essentially, you can be anti-competitive only to the point where you’ve been too successful at it, then it’s bad.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Anti-competitive behaviours such as price-fixing and over-broad no-compete clauses can be problematic even without a monopoly.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Fair point, though they typically only become problematic (aka are acted on/legislated against) when they significantly distort the market to a degree people start really complaining about it. Usually due to either a monopsony/cartel/monopoly which controls most of the market doing it successfully. If the companies in the lower 5% of a market price fix or the like, no one usually cares. Even 20%, usually. The Sherman antitrust act speaks about ‘restraints of trade’ because it has to actually restrain trade, which requires a significant degree of control - which a successful/actual monopoly, monopsony, or cartel can do. Technically, even attempting to do it is illegal, but going after every company that tries has a bit of the same feel as locking up every single toddler because they took a swing at someone or threatened them with their cute little stubby kid scissors. It’s a waste of resources, not in anyone’s interest, stops behavior most people would consider necessary/healthy to some degree, causes much worse problems than it solves, etc. On the other hand, locking up a successful serial killer is just good public policy. The difference between the two is more a matter of the success and effectiveness of their tactics, not really intent.
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Generally agree. There are some subtle edge cases like price dumping, but even that's still ultimately an attempt to gain market dominance.
- the_clarence 2y ago
  Its not the same as forcing them to shut down or say yes. They wanted one less competitor yes, as every company does, but they didn't prevent the company from growing and existing.

stackskipton 2y ago

Facebook knew that Instagram was up and coming and instead of competing, it just bought it. You can read more about initial complaint and following the trial here: https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-on-the-stand-the-trial https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-on-the-stand-the...

DecentShoes 2y ago
Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions?
- callc 2y ago
  If the purpose of an acquisition is to quash competition that is bad. Monopolies are bad. Another purpose of acquisitions is to acquire a new capability that you could not do in house that you do not already compete on.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Instagram was and still is in a highly competitive market. Previously it was Snapchat at the time and now it's Tiktok. Not to mention YouTube shorts, Reddit, Twitter, and every other service focused on video and pictures. I don't think any social media consumer is lacking choice.
    - callc 2y ago
      Regardless of how much “choice” there is in a market, FB made an anti-competitive play. Now we all have n-1 choices. The question of whether society should allow companies to perform anti-competitive actions should not be “will we be left with enough choices?”, but should be “is this an anti-competitive action?”
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Isn't this the purpose of most acquisitions? No, it's not. It is not normal or usual. Not even in the tech industry.

ezfe 2y ago

Buying a rising product to make sure you control it instead of needing to compete with it is not legal when you're the size of Facebook.

the_clarence 2y ago
Isnt this inviting to competition? You can make a big exit by competing and getting acquired
- ezfe 2y ago
  Well - it invites people creating big promises and then selling, which doesn't help the consumer.
  - the_clarence 2y ago
    IMO the consumer wins if there's a single social network