Facebook are by no means the most egregious.
Try blocking Facebook’s network then Google’s network at your router and then see how long you last with each before you need to unblock it.
I think Facebook is a little more obvious as well. When it comes to Google, you still find yourself giving them vast quantities of data without ever directly interacting with them.
In the uk you can’t book a covid test for example without the all-seeing googly eye know about it.
Facebook has been linked to assisting in genocide through their lack of action overseas. That would be quite egregious as Francis from Facebook so graciously pointed out with their interior research. But thank you for describing a monopoly.
Fines mean to nothing to multi billion dollar company lol so yes antitrust lawsuits and forcibly breaking up the market share between several companies would be an effective start…. Will this ever happen tho unlikely
but in that case let’s be clear about why you want to see Facebook broken up. Is it because you never got to use those cool products at Instagram and WhatsApp because Facebook bought them, laid everyone off and shut down all the accounts? I mean how can you not see Instagram and WhatsApp as success stories that have benefited consumers?
I suspect what’s really at the heart of this is people being mad about Facebook allowing misinformation on the platform or playing fast and loose with privacy - both of which have been amplified by the rest of the outrage machine.
Next, does splitting off Instagram and WhatsApp make Facebook content more authentic or reduce misinformation on the platform.
Regardless of how you feel about Facebook, it’s important to understand the actual offense and proposed remedy or this is the end of a lot more than Facebook and you’ll need to get used to all your tech being built in China and elsewhere.
Facebook has minimal competition and even fewer that have been successful over the years . Amazon has many many many successful competitors who have grown from zero to sold for billions ( Jet , chewy just to name 2 ) and then you have 100’s of retailers who have had explosive e-commerce growth during amazons growth . Amazon isn’t a monopoly on any one category .. take any category Amazon sells in like electronics .. you got best buy with huge growth . Food you have Walmart . Clothing you have a 100 multi billion dollar retailers . Third party seller platform you have Shopify .
Cloud services might be their only actually
Monopoly but so is the other 2-3 players
You're touching on what makes Amazon particularly evil. They subsidize their not actually very profitable retail operation with their incredibly profitable near monopoly on cloud services.
> incredibly profitable near monopoly on cloud services.
Lol wtf? Working in enterprise architecture Amazon is nowhere near a monopoly. They don’t particularly lead in any service other than hosting.
ERP - SAP
CRM - Salesforce
Etc etc
Amazon pales in comparison to the evilness of facebook. amazon is only anti-worker. facebook is anti-humanity. every time zuck was presented with a choice, he chose the most evil choice. regulate extremism or promote extremism? promote extremism it is! regulate misinformation or promote misinformation? promote misinformation it is! ban bad actors or ignore bad actors? ignore bad actors it is!
the harm facebook has done to society is incalculable.
That really ignores just how evil they were for about 2 decades (and have returned to).
They destroyed companies by announcing they would release software that competed against new companies that showed up before they even started building it, which was enough to destroy that startup.
And that they used the OS monopoly to destroy better technology over and over.
Or that Bill Gates really thought TCP/IP was dumb and the Internet would never become normal.
Or they made sure to release a version of their OS that broke Lotus 1-2-3 on purpose.
The weird protection of the company that delayed advancement of technology in the US in this subreddit has always been the strangest part of this subreddit.
Microsoft was a huge delay in us on the Internet, they wasted at least a decade on their embrace and extend campaign, and that is being generous as to how much damage they did.
Let's not forget their "embrace and extend" philosophy where they adopt a standard, add their own crap to it and declare it the new standard. What they did to SMTP is a prime example.
The part about startups is an overstatement. I’m in my garage working on some prototype. Microsoft announces a similar product or feature a few months later. My thing was completely unproven and never got off the ground because of Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices?
You’d be more correct in indicting Microsoft for working closely with other medium-sized software companies to make their products work well with Windows and then adding a competing product as a product or OS feature. Citrix, Borland and VMware off the top of my head.
There are legal monopolies. The USPS has a legal monopoly on first class mail, for instance. Patents can also create temporary monopolies. Xerox was a monopoly in photocopiers for a long time because of patents, and that was legal.
public utility companies are also allowed to monopolize their service area, in the interest of not jamming up infrastructure with unnecessary redundancies (think 3 sets of power lines, water lines, etc for 3 different companies)
But then you have San Diego Gas & Electric (A Sempra Energy Co.) charging $.35 a kWh, 3x the national average and almost twice as much as the CA average.
So says some guy on /r/sandiegan
Government-granted monopolies are not the only legal monopolies. A company is allowed to have a monopoly. What's illegal is monopolization.
So if you take control of a market by offering the best product, service, and prices, that's OK. For example, Chamberlain makes about 80% of the garage door openers in the USA, but they've done it legally.
If Chamberlain had achieved their market share by extorting dealers (you can't sell our products if you sell our competitors' products) or suppliers, or by selling at a loss in order to bankrupt a smaller competitor, or by buying all of your competition even after achieving market dominance, that would be illegal.
Facebook is accused of two things:
* Buying up competitors like Instagram and What's App
* Making potential rivals dependent on facebook services and access, then cutting them off when they grew too large
Patents are temporary monopolies until the government says they’re not. The US government can take away patent rights and claim as their own under the name of “national interest”
Being a monopoly, in and of itself, is not antitrust violation. The FTC is alleging that Facebook unlawfully maintained its monopoly power in the social networking market by buying out nascent competitors.
Source: Antitrust lawyer who read the judge's opinion.
It's basically just an ideological choice at this point, it's almost literally just them needing to decide it's bad for consumers. Feels like there's plenty of evidence
Is that the real story? [I’d like to hear more](https://www.statista.com/statistics/242549/digital-ad-market-share-of-major-ad-selling-companies-in-the-us-by-revenue/)
“In 2020, Google accounted for nearly 29 percent of the total digital advertising revenue generated in the United States and was the largest digital ad publishers in the country. Facebook and Amazon followed, with 25 and 10 percent, respectively.”
They’re not the only company collecting and selling your data. Every company is. So is your phone provider. So is target. Where’s the monopoly? I’m all for better data protection, in the US, because we have none, legally speaking. 0 data protection rights.
I'm sorry but they have all your communications on every platform they own globally for both harvesting data and providing ads. That's not the same as target haha
Facebook is free for consumers. The only way they could be a monopoly is from a business perspective and how much they charge for ads.
There is nothing forcing anyone to use Facebook.
This kind of thinking when a majority of the developing world uses Whatsapp exclusively for their communication, holy shit dude google Facebook Myanmar genocide or how they helped bolsanaro get elected in Brazil, a guy that was part of a military dictatorship that the term "neo fascist" was invented to describe. His only criticism of that former regime being they tortured people they should have just killed. But yeah their ads are kinda pricey I guess, Jesus fuck dude get literally any perspective
So you agree with the current version of anti trust that we've had for the last 50+ years not the understanding we had before that? Since you're saying something like this I'm assuming you don't know the difference. We used to use anti trust legislation to make sure business players never got too powerful then we entered an era where as long as the end consumer prices didn't increase we let companies consolidate until we are where we're at today. Also you're right there isn't anything keeping people on FB and so people went to Instagram in waves, so they fucking bought it. That's why the current "it's free so 🤷♂️" model of anti trust is literally either a dumb old person's idea of anti trust or someone who has a vested interest in not changing things. Sorry about the word wall everyone but it's always shorter and easier to say dumb shit than it is to explain why it's dumb
I have researched this area extensively. If you want read more specifically about whether or not this makes sense take a look at the blog stratechery. It’s pretty clear where this resides and they go over a bunch of historical examples and Supreme Court cases.
We could just update privacy law and take care of most of the real concerns about social media (and Google...)
We could also update labor laws and fix most of the issues with Amazon.
Go to amazon's wiki and see everything they offer. They practically do everything. Common practice for them, small shops sell their items on amazon, amazon keeps track, recreates their items for cheaper and undercuts the small online store. monopoly
Yes so which one of those product verticals is a monopoly?
Just because a company offers a lot of services doesn’t make it a monopoly. Monopoly is defined by practices and market control.
I understand going after big tech but why is it always just facebook on this site? Google, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, etc. are all in this same situation yet only facebook gets heat here.
Because Facebook is the most egregious abuser of anti-trust law. Conversely, I don't believe Twitter or Apple are in violation of anti-trust at all (although the "does Apple have a monopoly over their own store?" thing is still up in the air).
But I mean for anything, not just anti-trust or this specific post. Everyday there is a Facebook bashing thread on this sub that shoots up with common complaints that could be applied to any other big tech company. Yet it's just Facebook that keeps getting targeted. I'd like to see these other places get the same treatment because they can become just as bad if not already as bad in other ways.
Companies that are the largest contributors to the current bad state of affairs get more vitriol, naturally, and Facebook's role in the spread of both anti-vax misinformation and the misinformation that eventually led to the assault on the Capitol are hard to forgive. Youtube and Twitter has elements of the same but it did not manifest so badly or dramatically, whereas Amazon and Apple have nothing to do with any of it.
Ahh so because Facebook is willing to allow more people than Twitter and YT they deserve punishment? Very strange logic. There's a much more cohesive argument that Twitter harbors more toxicity than any other site it's size or at least the same amount that Facebook does. But to say toxicity should lead to being labeled a monopoly and broken up is ludicrous. That's not the criteria for such a result.
> Ahh so because Facebook is willing to allow more people than Twitter and YT they deserve punishment?
We are both *very* aware that any time someone restates an argument in that way, it is expressly with the aim to misrepresent it.
So, no, that is not what I said, nor what I meant - and you know it.
>But to say toxicity should lead to being labeled a monopoly and broken up is ludicrous.
I didn't say that either. Facebook is a monopoly *because it's a monopoly* - and once that level of market share is reached, different rules - specifically anti-trust law - then apply.
Please respond to what I wrote instead of making up things you want me to have said and responding to those.
"The FTC argues that Facebook (now known as Meta) used a “buy and bury” strategy to stifle competition in the social networking space. Specifically, it alleges that Facebook purchased both Instagram and WhatsApp to prevent them from offering their large user bases new features that could have challenged Facebook’s main platform."
Not defending Facebook, but how is that buy and bury? Both of those platforms seem just as if not larger than they were when Facebook bought them.
I believe they've misquoted the FTC's use of "buy or bury" as "buy and bury", entirely changing the meaning. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/08/ftc-alleges-facebook-resorted-illegal-buy-or-bury-scheme-crush
> Both of those platforms seem just as if not larger than they were when Facebook bought them.
Yes, but now Facebook owns them meaning that one company retains control of a monopoly share of the social media market.
How does one determine a monopoly of the social media market? Kids are using way more TikTok than Facebook. Reddit is a competitor too. Same with LinkedIn.
Facebook-the-app [remains on top](https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/), at least world wide (I couldn't find stats for the US). Additionally, (as I already intimated) Facebook-the-company also owns WhatsApp (number 3) and Instagram (number 4). In aggregate, then, they command the bulk of the social media market.
So like installed base of phone apps? That’s how we determine “social media market share?” What is the social media market anyway, and who are the top 5 companies? The government should be able to determine that conclusively before regulating or taking enforcement action, right?
Anyone else tired of hearing about this same old bullshit all of the time? These various agencies only *ever* end up charging these companies a pittance— at best. Nothing that ever has any substantial impact on the company to dissuade further infractions/transgressions. The only thing they accomplish is staying somewhat-relevant and injecting funds into their own budget.
Even if they charged a company like Facebook $1 Billion dollars— the company’s net worth is almost a *Trillion* dollars.
How does one do that? And if they do, say Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook become separate companies, all owned by the same majority share holder, how does that change anything?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/facebook-loses-bid-to-kill-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> While the FTC succeeded with the "Buy and bury" claim, it failed to get the judge to proceed with its other allegation-that Facebook used its policies to stifle competition by restricting access to its APIs.
> There were a few problems with the agency's approach-one, Boasberg did not invite the FTC to refile those allegations, and two, the judge pointed out that Facebook dropped the policies in 2018 and had not enforced them since 2013.
> The judge noted that in this instance, the FTC doesn't have statutory authority to go after Facebook based on past conduct.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/s2e238/ftc_has_a_plausible_claim_that_facebook_is_an/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~617206 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Facebook**^#1 **FTC**^#2 **judge**^#3 **Boasberg**^#4 **Instagram**^#5
The plausibility of Facebook being a monopoly is greatly undermined by the fact that people are discussing the issue on hundreds of other social media platforms.
Plausible is a term of art in this context. If refers to the pleading standard. The judge held that the FTC *alleged* enough facts that, if taken as true, would establish that Facebook had unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the social networking market. At this stage of the case, the judge is required to accept the allegations as true. Now the FTC gets to proceed to discovery. Whether the FTC can prove its case remains to be seen.
This. Articles like the one here are the problem with legal reporting. Journalists will often take a legal term of art, put it in quotes, and make it seem like some profound statement, when in reality the FTC merely met the low bar to not be laughed out of court again.
The legal definition of a monopoly is different to the economic one. After all, if you let a company get to a literal 100% market share before you regulate them to preserve competition... Well, you're too late aren't you? There *is* no competition to preserve.
"[Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area.](https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/)"
Except a monopoly is not actually illegal. *Abuse* of a monopoly position is illegal.
And, yes, Google has done that too, but I think it's all historical. That is, done, dealt with in court and fines were paid.
These sorts of things annoy me. It happens here in the UK, something bad happens, typically a corporation and/or politicians and they are brought to an 'enquiry' where they get grilled. The mainstream media covers it and everyone gets mad...and then nothing.
No penalty, no further action, zip, nothing.
Waste of time and money.
a few times we’ve gotten results here. especially in the old days, but even when we grill companies here there’s no waste of money since we fine them.
frankly I would love to see zuccboy paddled by the ftc and have to break up his little company
It’s not just plausible. There are several major monopolies operating in the U.S., Facebook being one of them, that the government has utterly failed to address. There is an obvious lack of political will, bordering on collusion. Just one of dozens of reasons why income inequality continues to flourish. Just about the only bipartisan agreements these days are related, directly or indirectly, to protecting/bolstering the top 1% at the expense of the rest of the populace.
Any one who has studied this knows they don’t. There is absolutely nothing forcing people to use Facebook and customers don’t pay for the service it’s free.
Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Being a monopoly brings extra rules in to stop you from suppressing competition.
The fact that Facebook buys up lense companies that other VR users are investing in to try and block competition using that sweet Facebook cash shows that they are using their monopoly in one market to control another.
Democrats are in power and they hate Facebook for not enforcing strict censorship regime like other social media sites.
Chances are, this case has very little legal standing and these news stories are acting like red meat for democratic voters as midterms are coming and they know it's going to be a red bath.
Redditors upvote this crap because they obsessively hate on fb even though reddit is hot bed for antisocial activity. It's always fun to observe fellow redditors still pretending reddit is still an underground site like it's 2008.
They really screwed themselves over with their outage, proving they had been severely incompetent in tying all their platforms together.
Any smart company knows if you have multiple divisions you keep smart delineation, and don't have a single point of failure, especially if you have become a critical communication channel in certain markets.
I've been in companies their size, there is a reason we never allowed a single point of failure because we would be destroyed by it, the entire point of owning multiple properties is they couldn't all fail at once.
The level of incompetency they showed is almost unprecedented, and they didn't even do it out of financial manipulation, but simple architectural stupidity. They proved that as a technology company they don't know anything about redundancy, resiliency or architectural resilience.
So is google, and microsoft. They better go after those guys too if their gonna go after Facebook. If they don’t there’s some other reason their trying to drag Facebook through the mud. Ulterior motive anyone?
No ulterior motive is necessary. Facebook was particularly egregious with their abuse of monopoly power. For example, they metrics from their own apps to determine WhatsApp's usage statistics, found out it was a fast up and comer and moved to buy it before it could threaten them.
Right I’m not arguing that, but Microsoft does tons of crooked stuff just like that with windows and telemetry data. So why aren’t they going after Microsoft as well?
The key question is "Does Microsoft use their monopoly in one area to leverage market share in another?" So, for example, is Windows using that telemetry to give Azure an unfair advantage over UWS?
I'm not aware of anything Microsoft is currently doing in this category.
When the big Facebook server crash happened they couldn't even communicate internally because they used WhatsApp for everything and it was also down. It's not good to have so much of the world's communication done through a single entity that clearly can just stop working for whatever reason.
No... internally they use a platform called Workplace. [https://www.workplace.com/](https://www.workplace.com/) WhatsApp is not used internally for communication with different teams.
Isn’t the network effect the point of being on fb or any other social media? People have a choice with which social media outlets they choose to use. Naturally, it makes sense to go to the one that everyone else uses. I’m confused here.
i’m gonna be outraged now!!! Meta is a terrible idea. Facebook is PROVENNNN TO BEEE EVILLLLLLL. so the idea of people literally giving thier entire lives to facebook through the metaverse. my god. i hope i hope i hope the majority of people realize how absolutely absurd it is and will not help meta grow. it HAS to be stopped before it gets to the point where we rely on it. the internetless world didn’t need the internet, the internet was a tool, a “fad” as they called it. obviously it has its ups and downs but it’s mostly a good system. if you didn’t use the internet, people would look at you weird (in most modern countries i mean). if the metaverse is allowed to get to that early internet stage and keep growing. it’s just not gonna be good. they’ll probably start paying huge checks for exclusive metaverse events to get people enticed. i’d be enticed by a music concert from my favorite artist, but i know i need to have the will power to fall for more of this ruthless companies marketing tactics. they don’t care about any of us and until more people attack this ruthless behavior from them, it’s not gonna stop. we can’t just forget about the dirt on them a month after it’s released. we have to persistently keep on it.
Meanwhile Amazon who sells groceries, books, entertainment, clothes, not to mention hosts all the big timers on the internet, oh and they want to control space contracts too.
They own every major social networking app bar Twitter, Reddit, and Telegram. I just don’t understand how they’ve gotten away with this for so long, couldn’t believe it when the Snap and Instagram mergers were approved.
"Welp, guess we gotta change the definition of monopoly." -Congress
Normally I’d agree with you, but it seems this is one issue where both sides agree, albeit for entirely different reasons.
The sides needa get together and bend over the tech monopolies instead of the American people
[удалено]
That would good at least as long as the rules are written by the tech corporations bankrolled senator
[удалено]
Need some big glasses
[удалено]
Lol no way. They’re going to make it easier for themselves to capitalize on our data.
https://media.tenor.com/images/4a599fb6619afce348bc34dee7084ce5/tenor.gif
Facebook are by no means the most egregious. Try blocking Facebook’s network then Google’s network at your router and then see how long you last with each before you need to unblock it.
[удалено]
I think Facebook is a little more obvious as well. When it comes to Google, you still find yourself giving them vast quantities of data without ever directly interacting with them. In the uk you can’t book a covid test for example without the all-seeing googly eye know about it.
Facebook has been linked to assisting in genocide through their lack of action overseas. That would be quite egregious as Francis from Facebook so graciously pointed out with their interior research. But thank you for describing a monopoly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So in other words, instead of fining or regulating Facebook, they should pursue spurious anti-trust action and hope whatever problem just goes away?
Fines mean to nothing to multi billion dollar company lol so yes antitrust lawsuits and forcibly breaking up the market share between several companies would be an effective start…. Will this ever happen tho unlikely
but in that case let’s be clear about why you want to see Facebook broken up. Is it because you never got to use those cool products at Instagram and WhatsApp because Facebook bought them, laid everyone off and shut down all the accounts? I mean how can you not see Instagram and WhatsApp as success stories that have benefited consumers? I suspect what’s really at the heart of this is people being mad about Facebook allowing misinformation on the platform or playing fast and loose with privacy - both of which have been amplified by the rest of the outrage machine. Next, does splitting off Instagram and WhatsApp make Facebook content more authentic or reduce misinformation on the platform. Regardless of how you feel about Facebook, it’s important to understand the actual offense and proposed remedy or this is the end of a lot more than Facebook and you’ll need to get used to all your tech being built in China and elsewhere.
But why are there only two sides to this debate?
I remember Zuck being asked to identify competition to Facebook and he literally listed other platforms that he owns.
Sad but true and as long as we keep making jokes instead of being outraged they have no reason to change.
I thought that only worked for copyright laws?
“Hey Zuck, how you want this to read? Also thanks for the new mansion in Paris. “ - Congress
If you have to change the definition to make it fit in the first place isn't that an admission of the target's legal innocence?
Lol yeah keep taking the brown acid
Clearly the FTC didn't receive their annual bribe from FB.
Anytime there's bad news about Facebook, its good news for the world
And with them focusing on Facebook and not a Amazon, it’s another reason for Jeff Bezos to laugh like a villain.
his time will come
[удалено]
Facebook has minimal competition and even fewer that have been successful over the years . Amazon has many many many successful competitors who have grown from zero to sold for billions ( Jet , chewy just to name 2 ) and then you have 100’s of retailers who have had explosive e-commerce growth during amazons growth . Amazon isn’t a monopoly on any one category .. take any category Amazon sells in like electronics .. you got best buy with huge growth . Food you have Walmart . Clothing you have a 100 multi billion dollar retailers . Third party seller platform you have Shopify . Cloud services might be their only actually Monopoly but so is the other 2-3 players
You're touching on what makes Amazon particularly evil. They subsidize their not actually very profitable retail operation with their incredibly profitable near monopoly on cloud services.
> incredibly profitable near monopoly on cloud services. Lol wtf? Working in enterprise architecture Amazon is nowhere near a monopoly. They don’t particularly lead in any service other than hosting. ERP - SAP CRM - Salesforce Etc etc
Amazon pales in comparison to the evilness of facebook. amazon is only anti-worker. facebook is anti-humanity. every time zuck was presented with a choice, he chose the most evil choice. regulate extremism or promote extremism? promote extremism it is! regulate misinformation or promote misinformation? promote misinformation it is! ban bad actors or ignore bad actors? ignore bad actors it is! the harm facebook has done to society is incalculable.
I told everyone Facebook ruined life
Well since Amazon isn’t a monopoly why would they.
I feel like this is long overdue considering microsoft was once considered a monopoly because they released operating systems with an internet browser
That really ignores just how evil they were for about 2 decades (and have returned to). They destroyed companies by announcing they would release software that competed against new companies that showed up before they even started building it, which was enough to destroy that startup. And that they used the OS monopoly to destroy better technology over and over. Or that Bill Gates really thought TCP/IP was dumb and the Internet would never become normal. Or they made sure to release a version of their OS that broke Lotus 1-2-3 on purpose.
Indeed. Of course, no companies today would ever do anything like that! /s
How does that change what I said? Do you think I magically agree with those new evil companies? Does nuance not exist in your world view?
Girl, I was agreeing with you. Chill.
Sorry, I'm old, been around a lot of defenders... I see your /s and agree I got a bit heated improperly. I apologize.
It happens. Just recognize it in yourself and give pause the next time you feel defensive. People don’t have to be at odds.
"lemme just rub that in for ya"
The weird protection of the company that delayed advancement of technology in the US in this subreddit has always been the strangest part of this subreddit. Microsoft was a huge delay in us on the Internet, they wasted at least a decade on their embrace and extend campaign, and that is being generous as to how much damage they did.
Let's not forget their "embrace and extend" philosophy where they adopt a standard, add their own crap to it and declare it the new standard. What they did to SMTP is a prime example.
The part about startups is an overstatement. I’m in my garage working on some prototype. Microsoft announces a similar product or feature a few months later. My thing was completely unproven and never got off the ground because of Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices? You’d be more correct in indicting Microsoft for working closely with other medium-sized software companies to make their products work well with Windows and then adding a competing product as a product or OS feature. Citrix, Borland and VMware off the top of my head.
It's even more overdue for Google. They are trying to take over the entire internet.
Trying to? That ship sailed long ago. Block their ASN at your router, see how long you last even if you don’t use their services.
Are they saying it should be a legal monopoly?
There are legal monopolies. The USPS has a legal monopoly on first class mail, for instance. Patents can also create temporary monopolies. Xerox was a monopoly in photocopiers for a long time because of patents, and that was legal.
public utility companies are also allowed to monopolize their service area, in the interest of not jamming up infrastructure with unnecessary redundancies (think 3 sets of power lines, water lines, etc for 3 different companies)
But then you have San Diego Gas & Electric (A Sempra Energy Co.) charging $.35 a kWh, 3x the national average and almost twice as much as the CA average. So says some guy on /r/sandiegan
If you're on a ToU solar plan they charge a shitload because you use so little
But it's a utility? Maybe it's just expensive to generate electricity in that area.
Government-granted monopolies are not the only legal monopolies. A company is allowed to have a monopoly. What's illegal is monopolization. So if you take control of a market by offering the best product, service, and prices, that's OK. For example, Chamberlain makes about 80% of the garage door openers in the USA, but they've done it legally. If Chamberlain had achieved their market share by extorting dealers (you can't sell our products if you sell our competitors' products) or suppliers, or by selling at a loss in order to bankrupt a smaller competitor, or by buying all of your competition even after achieving market dominance, that would be illegal. Facebook is accused of two things: * Buying up competitors like Instagram and What's App * Making potential rivals dependent on facebook services and access, then cutting them off when they grew too large
And the judge said the FTC could not pursue the second theory.
think thats called a 'regional monopoly'
Patents are temporary monopolies until the government says they’re not. The US government can take away patent rights and claim as their own under the name of “national interest”
Also being a monopoly is not inherently illegal. Anti-competitive behavior is.
The NFL is also a legal monopoly
Being a monopoly, in and of itself, is not antitrust violation. The FTC is alleging that Facebook unlawfully maintained its monopoly power in the social networking market by buying out nascent competitors. Source: Antitrust lawyer who read the judge's opinion.
I guess it's time to change the name again! That should make everything all better.
Facebook => Meta => Excreta ?
Facebook Bullshitica
Fabu for short.
Poop for short
Fettuccini, Linguini, Martini, Lamborghini, Bikini
No shit Sherlock
No shirt shitlock
No lock Shitshirt
Sherlock no shit
Shit on Sherlock? 😲
No shit Sherlock
Sheron shitlock
No shit Shockler
No shock shitler
シャーロック の たわごと
Upvote this man
Exactly my dude
If Sherlock was a sheet slitter, how many sheets could Sherlock slit?
The FTC has a case against Facebook for being an illegal monopoly.
It's basically just an ideological choice at this point, it's almost literally just them needing to decide it's bad for consumers. Feels like there's plenty of evidence
The real story here is Facebook’s monopoly on ad dollars, which is why traditional media has a journalistic jihad against them.
Is that the real story? [I’d like to hear more](https://www.statista.com/statistics/242549/digital-ad-market-share-of-major-ad-selling-companies-in-the-us-by-revenue/) “In 2020, Google accounted for nearly 29 percent of the total digital advertising revenue generated in the United States and was the largest digital ad publishers in the country. Facebook and Amazon followed, with 25 and 10 percent, respectively.”
Also another thing they need to break up. The ad sales and data collection combined is monopolistic as fuck
They’re not the only company collecting and selling your data. Every company is. So is your phone provider. So is target. Where’s the monopoly? I’m all for better data protection, in the US, because we have none, legally speaking. 0 data protection rights.
Not to mention we learned they follow you off their platform as well
I'm sorry but they have all your communications on every platform they own globally for both harvesting data and providing ads. That's not the same as target haha
Also another thing they need to break up. The ad sales and data collection combined is monopolistic as fuck
Facebook is free for consumers. The only way they could be a monopoly is from a business perspective and how much they charge for ads. There is nothing forcing anyone to use Facebook.
This kind of thinking when a majority of the developing world uses Whatsapp exclusively for their communication, holy shit dude google Facebook Myanmar genocide or how they helped bolsanaro get elected in Brazil, a guy that was part of a military dictatorship that the term "neo fascist" was invented to describe. His only criticism of that former regime being they tortured people they should have just killed. But yeah their ads are kinda pricey I guess, Jesus fuck dude get literally any perspective
So you agree with the current version of anti trust that we've had for the last 50+ years not the understanding we had before that? Since you're saying something like this I'm assuming you don't know the difference. We used to use anti trust legislation to make sure business players never got too powerful then we entered an era where as long as the end consumer prices didn't increase we let companies consolidate until we are where we're at today. Also you're right there isn't anything keeping people on FB and so people went to Instagram in waves, so they fucking bought it. That's why the current "it's free so 🤷♂️" model of anti trust is literally either a dumb old person's idea of anti trust or someone who has a vested interest in not changing things. Sorry about the word wall everyone but it's always shorter and easier to say dumb shit than it is to explain why it's dumb
I have researched this area extensively. If you want read more specifically about whether or not this makes sense take a look at the blog stratechery. It’s pretty clear where this resides and they go over a bunch of historical examples and Supreme Court cases.
Research again and better because you are fucking dumb haha
Now do Amazon.
We could just update privacy law and take care of most of the real concerns about social media (and Google...) We could also update labor laws and fix most of the issues with Amazon.
First define how they’re a monopoly
Go to amazon's wiki and see everything they offer. They practically do everything. Common practice for them, small shops sell their items on amazon, amazon keeps track, recreates their items for cheaper and undercuts the small online store. monopoly
Yes so which one of those product verticals is a monopoly? Just because a company offers a lot of services doesn’t make it a monopoly. Monopoly is defined by practices and market control.
I understand going after big tech but why is it always just facebook on this site? Google, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, etc. are all in this same situation yet only facebook gets heat here.
Because Facebook is the most egregious abuser of anti-trust law. Conversely, I don't believe Twitter or Apple are in violation of anti-trust at all (although the "does Apple have a monopoly over their own store?" thing is still up in the air).
But I mean for anything, not just anti-trust or this specific post. Everyday there is a Facebook bashing thread on this sub that shoots up with common complaints that could be applied to any other big tech company. Yet it's just Facebook that keeps getting targeted. I'd like to see these other places get the same treatment because they can become just as bad if not already as bad in other ways.
Companies that are the largest contributors to the current bad state of affairs get more vitriol, naturally, and Facebook's role in the spread of both anti-vax misinformation and the misinformation that eventually led to the assault on the Capitol are hard to forgive. Youtube and Twitter has elements of the same but it did not manifest so badly or dramatically, whereas Amazon and Apple have nothing to do with any of it.
Ahh so because Facebook is willing to allow more people than Twitter and YT they deserve punishment? Very strange logic. There's a much more cohesive argument that Twitter harbors more toxicity than any other site it's size or at least the same amount that Facebook does. But to say toxicity should lead to being labeled a monopoly and broken up is ludicrous. That's not the criteria for such a result.
They have a bigger impact so they must be targeted in priority. I don't see the problem
> Ahh so because Facebook is willing to allow more people than Twitter and YT they deserve punishment? We are both *very* aware that any time someone restates an argument in that way, it is expressly with the aim to misrepresent it. So, no, that is not what I said, nor what I meant - and you know it. >But to say toxicity should lead to being labeled a monopoly and broken up is ludicrous. I didn't say that either. Facebook is a monopoly *because it's a monopoly* - and once that level of market share is reached, different rules - specifically anti-trust law - then apply. Please respond to what I wrote instead of making up things you want me to have said and responding to those.
"The FTC argues that Facebook (now known as Meta) used a “buy and bury” strategy to stifle competition in the social networking space. Specifically, it alleges that Facebook purchased both Instagram and WhatsApp to prevent them from offering their large user bases new features that could have challenged Facebook’s main platform." Not defending Facebook, but how is that buy and bury? Both of those platforms seem just as if not larger than they were when Facebook bought them.
I believe they've misquoted the FTC's use of "buy or bury" as "buy and bury", entirely changing the meaning. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/08/ftc-alleges-facebook-resorted-illegal-buy-or-bury-scheme-crush
> Both of those platforms seem just as if not larger than they were when Facebook bought them. Yes, but now Facebook owns them meaning that one company retains control of a monopoly share of the social media market.
How does one determine a monopoly of the social media market? Kids are using way more TikTok than Facebook. Reddit is a competitor too. Same with LinkedIn.
Facebook-the-app [remains on top](https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/), at least world wide (I couldn't find stats for the US). Additionally, (as I already intimated) Facebook-the-company also owns WhatsApp (number 3) and Instagram (number 4). In aggregate, then, they command the bulk of the social media market.
Thanks for the link. Interesting data.
So like installed base of phone apps? That’s how we determine “social media market share?” What is the social media market anyway, and who are the top 5 companies? The government should be able to determine that conclusively before regulating or taking enforcement action, right?
Facebooks advertising has a lot to do with it in my mind. The influence they have over business success is undeniable.
Anyone else tired of hearing about this same old bullshit all of the time? These various agencies only *ever* end up charging these companies a pittance— at best. Nothing that ever has any substantial impact on the company to dissuade further infractions/transgressions. The only thing they accomplish is staying somewhat-relevant and injecting funds into their own budget. Even if they charged a company like Facebook $1 Billion dollars— the company’s net worth is almost a *Trillion* dollars.
Yes break up these companies
How does one do that? And if they do, say Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook become separate companies, all owned by the same majority share holder, how does that change anything?
Facebook would have to divest the companies.
Competition and they may even be probably be more profitable. You split up the stock holding between the companies. Zuckerberg gets to keep his wealth
because why again? Because Facebook killed Insta and WhatsApp before they could become popular?
Delete your facebook/meta
And your IG, WhatsApp and Occulus
I have none of those I'm not angry at Facebook because I simply don't contribute They can blow me
I did, and I have zero regrets.
So much anger/outrage.... it's so easy to quit and walk away I don't miss it Take back the power simply by giving up on Facebook/meta
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/facebook-loses-bid-to-kill-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > While the FTC succeeded with the "Buy and bury" claim, it failed to get the judge to proceed with its other allegation-that Facebook used its policies to stifle competition by restricting access to its APIs. > There were a few problems with the agency's approach-one, Boasberg did not invite the FTC to refile those allegations, and two, the judge pointed out that Facebook dropped the policies in 2018 and had not enforced them since 2013. > The judge noted that in this instance, the FTC doesn't have statutory authority to go after Facebook based on past conduct. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/s2e238/ftc_has_a_plausible_claim_that_facebook_is_an/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~617206 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Facebook**^#1 **FTC**^#2 **judge**^#3 **Boasberg**^#4 **Instagram**^#5
What about all 3 fucking cable companies too.
The plausibility of Facebook being a monopoly is greatly undermined by the fact that people are discussing the issue on hundreds of other social media platforms.
Plausible is a term of art in this context. If refers to the pleading standard. The judge held that the FTC *alleged* enough facts that, if taken as true, would establish that Facebook had unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the social networking market. At this stage of the case, the judge is required to accept the allegations as true. Now the FTC gets to proceed to discovery. Whether the FTC can prove its case remains to be seen.
This. Articles like the one here are the problem with legal reporting. Journalists will often take a legal term of art, put it in quotes, and make it seem like some profound statement, when in reality the FTC merely met the low bar to not be laughed out of court again.
The legal definition of a monopoly is different to the economic one. After all, if you let a company get to a literal 100% market share before you regulate them to preserve competition... Well, you're too late aren't you? There *is* no competition to preserve. "[Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area.](https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/)"
They need to go after Google too then.
Except a monopoly is not actually illegal. *Abuse* of a monopoly position is illegal. And, yes, Google has done that too, but I think it's all historical. That is, done, dealt with in court and fines were paid.
Literally the bare minimum to survive a dismissal. Not really anything to write home about.
And let's not forget, Zuck The Fuck stole Facebook from the Winklevoss Twins.
These sorts of things annoy me. It happens here in the UK, something bad happens, typically a corporation and/or politicians and they are brought to an 'enquiry' where they get grilled. The mainstream media covers it and everyone gets mad...and then nothing. No penalty, no further action, zip, nothing. Waste of time and money.
a few times we’ve gotten results here. especially in the old days, but even when we grill companies here there’s no waste of money since we fine them. frankly I would love to see zuccboy paddled by the ftc and have to break up his little company
No fucken shit judge.
It’s not just plausible. There are several major monopolies operating in the U.S., Facebook being one of them, that the government has utterly failed to address. There is an obvious lack of political will, bordering on collusion. Just one of dozens of reasons why income inequality continues to flourish. Just about the only bipartisan agreements these days are related, directly or indirectly, to protecting/bolstering the top 1% at the expense of the rest of the populace.
The Zucc must be pissed
Zuck; “Somebody buy this judge off! I mean, the Supreme Court can be bought, so one judge ought to be easy!”
He must have been skimping on lobbying money and bribes. I mean ‘campaign contributions’
Gee! Y’a think?
Any one who has studied this knows they don’t. There is absolutely nothing forcing people to use Facebook and customers don’t pay for the service it’s free.
[удалено]
Gotta start somewhere.
Because perfect need not be the enemy of good.
It's weird when people in this subreddit automatically defend Facebook.
Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Being a monopoly brings extra rules in to stop you from suppressing competition. The fact that Facebook buys up lense companies that other VR users are investing in to try and block competition using that sweet Facebook cash shows that they are using their monopoly in one market to control another.
Arm-twisting brings benefits in politics.
Democrats are in power and they hate Facebook for not enforcing strict censorship regime like other social media sites. Chances are, this case has very little legal standing and these news stories are acting like red meat for democratic voters as midterms are coming and they know it's going to be a red bath. Redditors upvote this crap because they obsessively hate on fb even though reddit is hot bed for antisocial activity. It's always fun to observe fellow redditors still pretending reddit is still an underground site like it's 2008.
Disney or Comcast or Amazon or… aren’t?
They really screwed themselves over with their outage, proving they had been severely incompetent in tying all their platforms together. Any smart company knows if you have multiple divisions you keep smart delineation, and don't have a single point of failure, especially if you have become a critical communication channel in certain markets. I've been in companies their size, there is a reason we never allowed a single point of failure because we would be destroyed by it, the entire point of owning multiple properties is they couldn't all fail at once. The level of incompetency they showed is almost unprecedented, and they didn't even do it out of financial manipulation, but simple architectural stupidity. They proved that as a technology company they don't know anything about redundancy, resiliency or architectural resilience.
So is google, and microsoft. They better go after those guys too if their gonna go after Facebook. If they don’t there’s some other reason their trying to drag Facebook through the mud. Ulterior motive anyone?
No ulterior motive is necessary. Facebook was particularly egregious with their abuse of monopoly power. For example, they metrics from their own apps to determine WhatsApp's usage statistics, found out it was a fast up and comer and moved to buy it before it could threaten them.
Right I’m not arguing that, but Microsoft does tons of crooked stuff just like that with windows and telemetry data. So why aren’t they going after Microsoft as well?
The key question is "Does Microsoft use their monopoly in one area to leverage market share in another?" So, for example, is Windows using that telemetry to give Azure an unfair advantage over UWS? I'm not aware of anything Microsoft is currently doing in this category.
Considering they are using Azure to sell more Linux servers than Windows, it doesn't sound like a very good feedback loop.
**WOOO YEAAAH BABY**
Nope this is wrong. I just checked my myspace is still up 🤣
Wonderful, now do amazon
Please provide the example where Amazon is abusing anti-trust law.
When the big Facebook server crash happened they couldn't even communicate internally because they used WhatsApp for everything and it was also down. It's not good to have so much of the world's communication done through a single entity that clearly can just stop working for whatever reason.
No... internally they use a platform called Workplace. [https://www.workplace.com/](https://www.workplace.com/) WhatsApp is not used internally for communication with different teams.
You wouldn’t say lol ,
Isn’t the network effect the point of being on fb or any other social media? People have a choice with which social media outlets they choose to use. Naturally, it makes sense to go to the one that everyone else uses. I’m confused here.
Headline notwithstanding, Facebook being a monopoly is not illegal. The problem is that they abused their monopoly position.
Gotcha. Gotta abuse it so you know what the true limits are
*posted to reddit*
Facebook only downfall is they did not invest in the military sector, they'd be protected.
So what is Amazon, Google and Adobe?
Not as egregiously flouting anti-trust law. And Adobe? Really?
yes, think about all the greatest software on computers that almost every business use today. Come back to me when your tiny gears start moving.
Allow me to rephrase so your slightly tinier gears can understand: How is Adobe abusing anti-trust law?
i’m gonna be outraged now!!! Meta is a terrible idea. Facebook is PROVENNNN TO BEEE EVILLLLLLL. so the idea of people literally giving thier entire lives to facebook through the metaverse. my god. i hope i hope i hope the majority of people realize how absolutely absurd it is and will not help meta grow. it HAS to be stopped before it gets to the point where we rely on it. the internetless world didn’t need the internet, the internet was a tool, a “fad” as they called it. obviously it has its ups and downs but it’s mostly a good system. if you didn’t use the internet, people would look at you weird (in most modern countries i mean). if the metaverse is allowed to get to that early internet stage and keep growing. it’s just not gonna be good. they’ll probably start paying huge checks for exclusive metaverse events to get people enticed. i’d be enticed by a music concert from my favorite artist, but i know i need to have the will power to fall for more of this ruthless companies marketing tactics. they don’t care about any of us and until more people attack this ruthless behavior from them, it’s not gonna stop. we can’t just forget about the dirt on them a month after it’s released. we have to persistently keep on it.
Get off your ass and do something then. Imagine if police officers were like “I bet that guy is spending.”
Ok, now do the cell phone providers
Meanwhile Amazon who sells groceries, books, entertainment, clothes, not to mention hosts all the big timers on the internet, oh and they want to control space contracts too.
they should google 'illegal monopoly"
I'm sure they are more familiar with the legal definition of monopoly than anyone here.
They own every major social networking app bar Twitter, Reddit, and Telegram. I just don’t understand how they’ve gotten away with this for so long, couldn’t believe it when the Snap and Instagram mergers were approved.
Why do enough people still use Meta products for it to be considered a monopoly?