I can't believe how weak these cases have been - are these more of a posturing thing?
* 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.
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).
>What's crazy is there is so much straight pure scam crap on the internet the FTC does nothing about.
>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.
>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).
I share your frustration, however I suspect this is more an indictment of our industry than FTC's apathy. Of course the FTC and other regulatory bodies are pursing enterprises for behavior other than that described in the link, but it may understandably be perceived that nothing is being done about those other egregious behaviors due simply to the sheer volume of occurrence.
This industry is rife with user-hostile behavior. It's become so commonplace you'll find these purveyors openly discussing it as if there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing; industry "best practices."
We used to refer to these things as press release politics. There is no goal to enforce any rule or punish anyone, they are designed for those on the political side to say, see, look how hard we are working for you, then the business consents to some minor thing with zero punishment and gets to say, see, we worked with the people in politics and we have all made things better.
You can see this see this at all levels of politics and business.
The last case against FB, that was thrown out of court was also very weak. Now, the new head of the FTC had spoken out against monopolies. It isn't surprising that a hardliner who is emotionally invested in bringing down Big Tech won't accomplish much. I think we can expect similar cases brought against Google, Amazon etc.
10 years ago in college, about 90% of my friends were using Facebook every day.
Today, we're ~30 y/o. I'd estimate about 10% of my friends use facebook every day, and more than 50% of them use it less than once week.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many people younger than me are barely using facebook at all. Most of the people I interact with on facebook these days are older relatives.
What's the basis for saying they're "crickets" on such scams? Those shady operators tend to be much smaller and less newsworthy than Facebook, so you don't read about them, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
I interned with the FTC's consumer protection division in Los Angeles during law school. My job was calling up people who had filed Better Business Bureau complaints and helping them to provide affidavits against the companies that scammed them. At the time we were focused on prepaid debit card scams.
Have you complained to the FTC about the company with the 1k/yr subscription? Made a BBB complaint? Filed a small claims court suit?
> * 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?
Facebook's only role in my life is as the main web presence for lots and lots of small organizations. They may have other things—even a website—but FB will be the first, and sometimes only, place content is posted. HOA, kids' schools, small area businesses, almost all treat FB is their main outlet for information, even if they do communicate some on other channels.
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).
These situations are solved with regulation. But not the regular kind of regulation, but one that forces business of a certain type to have simpler procedures for actions like canceling, procedures that also keep a public record that some authorities can readily inspect and do instant arbitration.
It's possible to make it work. Once there is no incentive for the companies to stall your cancelation or complaints, they suddenly lose interest and use their resources to do productive work. How do I know it works? I've seen it in action for the last decade or two: if you want to change mobile providers (in Spain, not sure about the USA) you just start a suscription with the new one. The former receives the notification and you don't even need to deal with them, except for one call offering you a counter-proposal.
A similar system could be implemented for many other suscriptions services.
>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?<
Not until they need it for a job or coordination need. Laying all the platforms out as competitors is sort of misguided imo though. Most social media platforms aren't competing for the same space they're competing to be the first to establish that space. Insta and Snapchat compete as did Myspace and Facebook. But Facebook, Insta, Discord, Whatsapp, Tiktok, Twitch, and Clubhouse are wildly different beasts as far as the experiences they offer and encourage even if the millenials and older generations just lump everything under 'social media business' because they see feeds and instant messaging. Most of these platforms might share demographics but they're wildly different products.
> *
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.*
Do a chargeback and let the company deal with the fallout from their
payment processors.
Use privacy.com for this. For every online subscription, you create a new credit card number, which can have preset limits. I like to give it enough money for ONE payment, and then it expires. You can also make it a one-time-use card.
These temp cards are all backed by your "real" card.
There's no fee. You don't get real privacy (i.e. the payments still show up on your bank statement) unless you pay $10/month, but if all you want is the ability to cancel immediately, this is for you. Take back the control.
Some web service makes it difficult for you to cancel? Screw 'em -- just cancel the credit card you gave them.
Most people my age don't use Facebook or only use it to keep in contact with family. My friends and I have recently re-created accounts on the platform because our respective universities require them for orientation or clubs and whatnot.
Could you instruct the payment vendor not to pay this charge? I've found that to be quite effective for "free first period" offers that refused to turn off.
Reversing mergers is completely appropriate when the merger is found to have caused harm to competition after the fact. It would be a crazy world if the FTC didn't pursue that.
That's... the point. Instagram was a very rapidly growing threat to Facebook's market position. Facebook took drastic action to ensure that they didn't become big.
It is a hard requirement that my two non-profit organizations have a FaceCrook presence. It is the same for a majority of businesses. This is clearly a monopoly position.
The level of service that they are providing to the user pales in comparison to the value of the data they extract in exchange. There is clear harm to the users.
That this is not a simple case against them is a clear failing of the regulators and/or their laws.
> 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.
Man, I hate FB as much as the next guy, but this argument is weak as hell.
FB was still the #1 mobile app in the world when they bought up both of these companies. Hell, neither were even direct competitors any more than Oculus was.
FB's play is clearly a horizontal integration - they want as many different types of products to fall under their single advertising pane of glass as possible. The FTC is going after them for doing the exact opposite thing.
> After failing to compete with new innovators, Facebook illegally bought or buried them when their popularity became an existential threat.
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.
Facebook also lied about requiring a Facebook account on oculus. Now they have cameras and microphones in peoples homes and a spectacular privacy history
I know it's just boilerplate that probably goes on a lot of news articles, but I find it so ironic that they are releasing a press release about ongoing legal action against Facebook, yet include the below call to action to 'like' them on that very same website!
> The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
>“Facebook lacked the business acumen and technical talent to survive the transition to mobile. After failing to compete with new innovators, Facebook illegally bought or buried them when their popularity became an existential threat,” said Holly Vedova, FTC Bureau of Competition Acting Director. “This conduct is no less anticompetitive than if Facebook had bribed emerging app competitors not to compete. The antitrust laws were enacted to prevent precisely this type of illegal activity by monopolists. Facebook’s actions have suppressed innovation and product quality improvements. And they have degraded the social network experience, subjecting users to lower levels of privacy and data protections and more intrusive ads. The FTC’s action today seeks to put an end to this illegal activity and restore competition for the benefit of Americans and honest businesses alike.”
Shouldn't the FTC be a neutral body?
How did the FTC miss this criminal activity for 10 whole years? I think an investigation should be called for.
The supposed antitrust laws have failed miserably. This must be the one of the FTC's worst failing ever, by their own admission.
This gem: “Facebook lacked the business acumen" FB has a market cap of
1T USD. That's $1,000,000,000,000. She sounds deluded.
Please keep in mind that one of (perhaps THE?) largest donors of “dark money” campaign contributions to the current administration was Dustin Moskovitz, who, last I checked, held the super-voting shares that are voted by default in Mark Zuckerberg’s favor, granting him a de facto corporate monarchy.
The best way to control the game is to own your opposition, and make sure they’re loud, credible, and totally ineffective.
Yeah it's definitely facebook that's the problem, as opposed to Google, Amazon, and payment processors. Definitely if I'm looking for a monopoly, my top concern is making sure people on the internet can chat without that familiar old household name "whatsapp."
> "The Facebook social network is known internally at Facebook as “Facebook Blue” and has more than <hidden> monthly users in the United States. Instagram attracts more than <hidden> monthly users."
I don't understand why some of the publicly available info in FB earnings reports is redacted from the complaint[1]. Does anyone know who determines what to redact and why?
Without Facebook Instagram wouldn't exist since Instagram used Facebook's social graph aka "Log in with Facebook" in order to kickstart and grow its userbase.
This was done in 2019 regarding Google. Unless it is followed up with some political and judicial muscle, it is useless. Facebook knows this. I am betting on this going nowhere, directly by owning Facebook stock and funds heavily invested in Facebook. biden needs silicon Valley support.
Their stock price hasn't appeared to notice - so I'm guessing that investors (like the majority of us I'd assume) are cotinuing on with the theory that even outright identifying a company as a monopoly isn't going to result in any serious anti-trust legislation in this modern world.
Obviously Facebook itself is going to try and play it cool throughout this entire proceeding - but the investors will usually jump ship if they're concerned.
Saying that Facebook has an impenetrable competitive position when they aren't even the dominant social network for young people anymore, and haven't been for years. They made a good deal with Instagram but that hasn't stopped innovation in the space at all.
What is particularly unfortunate is that Facebook are in the firing line because they became the lightning rod for politicians...and there are actually companies out there doing anti-competitive things. Google has bought up digital advertising, they have a piece of all parts of the value chain...how is this legal? Apple and Google have sewn up the market for apps? Nothing.
Also, Facebook has been the most responsive to politicians but the fatality was being seen to have helped Trump in 2016 (even though they didn't do so as actively as they helped Obama). FB are terribly rapacious but you feel bad for them in that there is literally no way for them to win (I suspect the core social network will eventually get spun off as it gets overwhelmed by govt claims against it).
Seeing some weird comments that disregard a lot of public history about exactly why there are anticompetitive complaints about Facebook in the first place. A quick breakdown of some of the common criticisms I've been seeing about whether Facebook is anticompetitive, and why they don't really stand up to scrutiny:
----
1. The nature of social networks is such that the landscape can change overnight. Do we need anticompetitive enforcement?
Correct, social networks can change overnight. But leaked documents[0] show that Facebook was aware of this (having gone through such a shift already with Myspace), and that they used purchases specifically as a defense against this phenomenon.
Facebook's plan was to use purchases to slow down the market and to make sure that no other competitor could grow large enough to be a threat. Zuckerberg said of this:
> "There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it’s difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different."
A large part of Facebook's strategy to avoid the fate of MySpace was to lock down the network effects and make sure that no other company had the time or resources to win at any social mechanic before Facebook got its foot in the door. It is specifically because of the ever-changing nature of the social landscape that Facebook pursued anticompetitive strategies and purchases.
Their purchasing strategy was designed to make these kinds of large market shifts impossible, not because Facebook could compete with every one of these companies, but because they would fold any existing userbase/featureset into Facebook before competitors got a chance to build a competitive userbase.
----
2. But Instagram/WhatsApp weren't even competing in the same space! Why would Facebook target them?
Facebook undeniably considered those companies to be competitors and threats. Again, this isn't theorizing, you can go read the leaked emails yourself if you don't believe me[1].
Here's Zuckerberg again:
> "Instagram can hurt us meaningfully without becoming a huge business."[2]
A little while later, he responded to another internal email:
> "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. One thing about startups though is you can often acquire them. I think this is a good outcome for everyone."
Even later, on messaging apps, he wrote:
> I think we should block WeChat, Kakao, and Line ads. Those companies are trying to build social networks and replace us. The revenue is immaterial to us compared to any risk. I agree we should use ads to promote our own products, but I'd still block companies that compete with our core from gaining any advantage from us.
----
3. But is Facebook even a threat anymore? TikTok is where the kids are!
Facebook spent around 6 months trying to buy TikTok early in its life[3], and (opinion me) I think the only reason it didn't pan out was because it was operating out of China and the deal was too complicated to close. After TikTok started to become a meaningful competitor, Facebook launched a public campaign painting the app as a national security threat.
Personally, I don't think it's a good long-term trend in the market that the only upstart social networks that seem to be able to meaningfully threaten Facebook are the ones coming out of China. And it's not clear to me that a startup American company today could replicate TikTok's success against Facebook.
> 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.
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.
[+] [-] slownews45|4 years ago|reply
* 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).
[+] [-] Nicksil|4 years ago|reply
>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.
>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).
I share your frustration, however I suspect this is more an indictment of our industry than FTC's apathy. Of course the FTC and other regulatory bodies are pursing enterprises for behavior other than that described in the link, but it may understandably be perceived that nothing is being done about those other egregious behaviors due simply to the sheer volume of occurrence.
This industry is rife with user-hostile behavior. It's become so commonplace you'll find these purveyors openly discussing it as if there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing; industry "best practices."
It's insane.
[+] [-] SteveGerencser|4 years ago|reply
You can see this see this at all levels of politics and business.
[+] [-] mig39|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FridayoLeary|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwkoss|4 years ago|reply
10 years ago in college, about 90% of my friends were using Facebook every day.
Today, we're ~30 y/o. I'd estimate about 10% of my friends use facebook every day, and more than 50% of them use it less than once week.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many people younger than me are barely using facebook at all. Most of the people I interact with on facebook these days are older relatives.
[+] [-] Calvin02|4 years ago|reply
FTC caters to the current party and pursues an aligned agenda over other things that can bring a tangible benefit to the population.
[+] [-] bjt|4 years ago|reply
I interned with the FTC's consumer protection division in Los Angeles during law school. My job was calling up people who had filed Better Business Bureau complaints and helping them to provide affidavits against the companies that scammed them. At the time we were focused on prepaid debit card scams.
Have you complained to the FTC about the company with the 1k/yr subscription? Made a BBB complaint? Filed a small claims court suit?
[+] [-] handrous|4 years ago|reply
Facebook's only role in my life is as the main web presence for lots and lots of small organizations. They may have other things—even a website—but FB will be the first, and sometimes only, place content is posted. HOA, kids' schools, small area businesses, almost all treat FB is their main outlet for information, even if they do communicate some on other channels.
[+] [-] narag|4 years ago|reply
These situations are solved with regulation. But not the regular kind of regulation, but one that forces business of a certain type to have simpler procedures for actions like canceling, procedures that also keep a public record that some authorities can readily inspect and do instant arbitration.
It's possible to make it work. Once there is no incentive for the companies to stall your cancelation or complaints, they suddenly lose interest and use their resources to do productive work. How do I know it works? I've seen it in action for the last decade or two: if you want to change mobile providers (in Spain, not sure about the USA) you just start a suscription with the new one. The former receives the notification and you don't even need to deal with them, except for one call offering you a counter-proposal.
A similar system could be implemented for many other suscriptions services.
[+] [-] unmole|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djeidpdd|4 years ago|reply
Not until they need it for a job or coordination need. Laying all the platforms out as competitors is sort of misguided imo though. Most social media platforms aren't competing for the same space they're competing to be the first to establish that space. Insta and Snapchat compete as did Myspace and Facebook. But Facebook, Insta, Discord, Whatsapp, Tiktok, Twitch, and Clubhouse are wildly different beasts as far as the experiences they offer and encourage even if the millenials and older generations just lump everything under 'social media business' because they see feeds and instant messaging. Most of these platforms might share demographics but they're wildly different products.
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
Do a chargeback and let the company deal with the fallout from their payment processors.
[+] [-] AlbertCory|4 years ago|reply
Use privacy.com for this. For every online subscription, you create a new credit card number, which can have preset limits. I like to give it enough money for ONE payment, and then it expires. You can also make it a one-time-use card.
These temp cards are all backed by your "real" card. There's no fee. You don't get real privacy (i.e. the payments still show up on your bank statement) unless you pay $10/month, but if all you want is the ability to cancel immediately, this is for you. Take back the control.
Some web service makes it difficult for you to cancel? Screw 'em -- just cancel the credit card you gave them.
[+] [-] brarsanmol|4 years ago|reply
Most people my age don't use Facebook or only use it to keep in contact with family. My friends and I have recently re-created accounts on the platform because our respective universities require them for orientation or clubs and whatnot.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jessaustin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgsovlerkhgsel|4 years ago|reply
Are such clauses binding, or can you send your cancellation by registered mail now and do a chargeback if they try to bill you beyond that?
[+] [-] arrosenberg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] micromacrofoot|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nsizx|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 5faulker|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] annadane|4 years ago|reply
With specific conditions, which Facebook violated
[+] [-] kube-system|4 years ago|reply
That's... the point. Instagram was a very rapidly growing threat to Facebook's market position. Facebook took drastic action to ensure that they didn't become big.
[+] [-] wintermutestwin|4 years ago|reply
The level of service that they are providing to the user pales in comparison to the value of the data they extract in exchange. There is clear harm to the users.
That this is not a simple case against them is a clear failing of the regulators and/or their laws.
[+] [-] legitster|4 years ago|reply
Man, I hate FB as much as the next guy, but this argument is weak as hell.
FB was still the #1 mobile app in the world when they bought up both of these companies. Hell, neither were even direct competitors any more than Oculus was.
FB's play is clearly a horizontal integration - they want as many different types of products to fall under their single advertising pane of glass as possible. The FTC is going after them for doing the exact opposite thing.
[+] [-] Calvin02|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hardtke|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
[+] [-] ajoseps|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gentleman11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Snitch-Thursday|4 years ago|reply
> The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
[+] [-] FridayoLeary|4 years ago|reply
Shouldn't the FTC be a neutral body?
How did the FTC miss this criminal activity for 10 whole years? I think an investigation should be called for. The supposed antitrust laws have failed miserably. This must be the one of the FTC's worst failing ever, by their own admission.
This gem: “Facebook lacked the business acumen" FB has a market cap of 1T USD. That's $1,000,000,000,000. She sounds deluded.
[+] [-] barbazoo|4 years ago|reply
(1) https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
[+] [-] numair|4 years ago|reply
The best way to control the game is to own your opposition, and make sure they’re loud, credible, and totally ineffective.
[+] [-] imhelpingu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gordon_freeman|4 years ago|reply
I don't understand why some of the publicly available info in FB earnings reports is redacted from the complaint[1]. Does anyone know who determines what to redact and why?
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ecf_75-1_ft...
[+] [-] avalys|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrkramer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulpauper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] docom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munk-a|4 years ago|reply
Obviously Facebook itself is going to try and play it cool throughout this entire proceeding - but the investors will usually jump ship if they're concerned.
[+] [-] hogFeast|4 years ago|reply
What is particularly unfortunate is that Facebook are in the firing line because they became the lightning rod for politicians...and there are actually companies out there doing anti-competitive things. Google has bought up digital advertising, they have a piece of all parts of the value chain...how is this legal? Apple and Google have sewn up the market for apps? Nothing.
Also, Facebook has been the most responsive to politicians but the fatality was being seen to have helped Trump in 2016 (even though they didn't do so as actively as they helped Obama). FB are terribly rapacious but you feel bad for them in that there is literally no way for them to win (I suspect the core social network will eventually get spun off as it gets overwhelmed by govt claims against it).
[+] [-] irfn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riazrizvi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codingdave|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danShumway|4 years ago|reply
----
1. The nature of social networks is such that the landscape can change overnight. Do we need anticompetitive enforcement?
Correct, social networks can change overnight. But leaked documents[0] show that Facebook was aware of this (having gone through such a shift already with Myspace), and that they used purchases specifically as a defense against this phenomenon.
Facebook's plan was to use purchases to slow down the market and to make sure that no other competitor could grow large enough to be a threat. Zuckerberg said of this:
> "There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it’s difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different."
A large part of Facebook's strategy to avoid the fate of MySpace was to lock down the network effects and make sure that no other company had the time or resources to win at any social mechanic before Facebook got its foot in the door. It is specifically because of the ever-changing nature of the social landscape that Facebook pursued anticompetitive strategies and purchases.
Their purchasing strategy was designed to make these kinds of large market shifts impossible, not because Facebook could compete with every one of these companies, but because they would fold any existing userbase/featureset into Facebook before competitors got a chance to build a competitive userbase.
----
2. But Instagram/WhatsApp weren't even competing in the same space! Why would Facebook target them?
Facebook undeniably considered those companies to be competitors and threats. Again, this isn't theorizing, you can go read the leaked emails yourself if you don't believe me[1].
Here's Zuckerberg again:
> "Instagram can hurt us meaningfully without becoming a huge business."[2]
A little while later, he responded to another internal email:
> "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. One thing about startups though is you can often acquire them. I think this is a good outcome for everyone."
Even later, on messaging apps, he wrote:
> I think we should block WeChat, Kakao, and Line ads. Those companies are trying to build social networks and replace us. The revenue is immaterial to us compared to any risk. I agree we should use ads to promote our own products, but I'd still block companies that compete with our core from gaining any advantage from us.
----
3. But is Facebook even a threat anymore? TikTok is where the kids are!
Facebook spent around 6 months trying to buy TikTok early in its life[3], and (opinion me) I think the only reason it didn't pan out was because it was operating out of China and the deal was too complicated to close. After TikTok started to become a meaningful competitor, Facebook launched a public campaign painting the app as a national security threat.
Personally, I don't think it's a good long-term trend in the market that the only upstart social networks that seem to be able to meaningfully threaten Facebook are the ones coming out of China. And it's not clear to me that a startup American company today could replicate TikTok's success against Facebook.
----
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/11/facebook-sold-co...
[1]: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
[2]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21345723/facebook-instagr...
[3]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/zuckerberg-musi...
[+] [-] theptip|4 years ago|reply
> 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.