FTC files new antitrust complaint against Facebook
Calvin02 2021-08-19 16:40:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Illegally bought or buried them?
1) FTC approved all the mergers. So, it is surprising that they'd say that these were illegally bought.
2) Facebook seems to be operating all key acquisitions (Instagram and WhatsApp) as separate products and hasn't made their usage conditional to having a Facebook account.
This is re-writing history and it is just as dangerous when the FTC does it as it is when a political party does it.
dessant 2021-08-19 16:50:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mgraczyk 2021-08-19 17:00:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ecf_75-1_ft...
Nowhere does it mention that Facebook misrepresented its intentions with Instagram or WhatsApp user data. It specifically discusses the 2012 consent order, approved by the FTC, in which it penalized Facebook and allowed future uses consistent with the consent order.
The complaint does not explicitly describe why the FTC has changed its mind, but the general idea seems to be that over time Facebook has demonstrated a pattern of buying competitors that wasn't apparent to the FTC in 2012 or 2014. It has nothing to do with data per se.
ajoseps 2021-08-19 16:46:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mgraczyk 2021-08-19 17:08:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]
srhngpr 2021-08-19 16:49:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
radicalbyte 2021-08-19 16:58:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
So your data is almost certainly linked.
barbazoo 2021-08-19 16:44:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
(1) https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
bingdig 2021-08-19 16:56:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]
blitzar 2021-08-19 16:56:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The only real recourse is to stop more of the same happening again in the future.
avalys 2021-08-19 16:31:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
theptip 2021-08-19 16:57:56 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> FTC Alleges Facebook Resorted to Illegal Buy-or-Bury Scheme to Crush Competition After String of Failed Attempts to Innovate
Ouch.
It's important to analyze this in the context of the initial complaint, which was rejected because they didn't show enough evidence of a monopoly (and many commenters here questioned that assertion too, discussed many times, but here for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666439). This amended complaint seems to make their claims more explicit.
Note that if I'm following correctly, the main thrust of the complaint is not that they are a monopoly now, it's that they were in the early 2010s, and they abused that monopoly position at that time. Though they do also spend some time making the case that they currently have monopoly power, I'm not sure that they need to substantiate monopoly in 2020; they might just need to substantiate it in 2012 (Instagram) and/or 2014 (WhatsApp).
> By 2011, Facebook was touting to its advertising clients that “Facebook is now 95% of all social media in the US.”
I find that more specific argument much more convincing, although I'm convincable that they have a 2020 monopoly too.
> According to the amended complaint, a critical transition period in the history of the internet, and in Facebook’s history, was the emergence of smartphones and the mobile Internet in the 2010s. Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, recognized at the time that “we’re vulnerable in mobile” and a major shareholder worried that Facebook’s mobile weakness “ran the risk of the unthinkable happening - being eclipsed by another network[.]”
> After suffering significant failures during this critical transition period, Facebook found that it lacked the business talent and engineering acumen to quickly and successfully integrate its outdated desktop-based technology to the new era of mobile-first communication. Unable to maintain its monopoly or its advertising profits by fairly competing, Facebook’s executives addressed this existential threat by buying up the new mobile innovators, including its rival Instagram in 2012 and mobile messaging app WhatsApp in 2014
> The amended complaint bolsters the FTC’s monopoly power allegations by providing detailed statistics showing that Facebook had dominant market shares in the U.S. personal social networking market.
The detailed claims seem to be found around paragraph 180 in the filing (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ecf_75-1_ft...). This cites Comscore numbers, does anyone know if they are any good?
Also, another claim might be that TikTok is a viable competitor; they claim TikTok is in another market:
> TikTok is a prominent example of a content broadcasting and consumption service that is not an acceptable substitute for personal social networking services.
It seems that a lot of antitrust complaints come down to where you draw the dotted line of the "market" in which they compete. This seems quite technical and IANAL so I'll just note this as interesting, without opining.
nikkinana 2021-08-19 16:58:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
beckman466 2021-08-19 16:30:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
kahrl 2021-08-19 16:33:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]
slownews45 2021-08-19 16:55:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
* These were all approved at the time. This is going to make for a crazy world if folks act on an approval and then they are reversed.
* The focus of a lot of these seems to be on harm to other (sometimes very scammy) businesses. The Apple case has this issue as well. Match group can't do non-cancelable auto-renewing billing in their own app store. Rando app can't get your email and other details but you can route via apple. Etc. Why not focus on consumer harm more - that was traditional focus. The complaint is Facebook doesn't make an easy api for others to scrape their platform - uh, hello cambridge analytic?
* These social network things seem somewhat fragile. Myspace came and went, Friendster was hot. Now I see a lot more folks on tiktok. Are kids still even active on facebook?
* Instagram wasn't that big when purchased, and many folks (including same people writing the articles now about monopolies) said that facebook wildly overpaid.
https://twitter.com/rockspindeln/status/189416024058245121
What's crazy is there is so much straight pure scam crap on the internet the FTC does nothing about. I mean, stuff that is obvious consumer harm. In my case I tried to cancel a subscription 30 days in advance recently (nearly 1K per year). It turns out you have to cancel 90 days in advance but not more than 120 days in advance?? So now I'm on the hook for another 1K. That is just total trash behavior online. And instead of the click to sign up, I had to go through endless hoops. Talked to someone, then they wanted me to submit a case, I did that, then back and forth to "verify" me etc etc.
The FTC is crickets on just endless false advertising, misleading internet offers etc (stuff that's not even close to OK).
nabla9 2021-08-19 17:07:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
With conditions Fb broke.
mig39 2021-08-19 17:01:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]