FTC Accuses Facebook of Social Media Monopoly, Calls for Divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp

[robinp]

One could also argue that whatever Apple has inside their App Store cannot possibly ever be considered a monopoly as the Apple App Stores only exist on Apple devices which themselves have plenty of competition that sells in greater numbers.

If you start to divide it up by the store it quickly becomes ridiculous as Target would also have a monopoly inside Target Stores, Walmart would have one in their stores, even the local mom-and-pop grocery store has a monopoly in their tiny corner store in that case.
Of course Apple rules the Apple App store - just like any other store owner rules their own store.

I agree. But it is the only part of apples operations where they compete and have control over competitors.

But yes, I agree, I think even that is unlikely for the reasons you note.

 

[robinp]

Target doesn't go to their suppliers saying they can only sell in targets store.

Does apple do this with the App Store?

I know Sony and Microsoft do this with games for Xbox and PlayStation. Not all exclusives are developed in house.

 

[Analog Kid]

Target doesn't go to their suppliers saying they can only sell in targets store.

Search “sold exclusively at Target”.

 

[MrTemple]

I abhor Facebook and everything they stand for, but I've got a hard time with throwing the "monopoly" word around even as it relates to FB. It's a website. The barrier to entry isn't massive. We've seen other social media companies come and go. Yeah, they have a lot of mind share, but so did MySpace in the day. Once the cool kids decide Zuck Sucks then FBs influence can fall off a cliff.

It took way too long for people to realize the privacy threat that Facebook posed, but now that people seemed to figure it out they're looking at the company and its products differently. I don't think they're as locked in as people might think.

At least in the US. I've heard things are different in some countries where FB has basically become the internet provider (Myanmar comes to mind). But that's not going to change because of anything the US DoJ does.

I dunno. I feel like "monopoly" has become like "socialism". People don't understand what it means or how it works, they just know that it's bad and so throw it at things they don't like. There have been very few monopoly cases against tech companies that look to be worth the effort in hindsight.

Facebook has only been a thing for what, 14 years? I think the Microsoft case took 14 years to prosecute. By the time this is done, the world is going to look completely different regardless of how this suit goes.

MySpace had a lot of traffic to a bunch of small blogs.

Facebook is hooked into almost every site on the internet and has DEEP analytics on nearly every internet user, whether they use the platform or not. Excepting only the tiniest few who know how to prevent their tracking. Tracking that provides them not just obscene revenue, but an entire galaxy of powerful players in business and politics and national security who depend on their tracking.

Comparing the two is... is PHENOMENALLY naive to just how much power Facebook holds.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The peoblem with these services is that we are at the point that we have to be in them whether we want it or not. Great example in my country is whatsapp and Instagram. Even institutions like government and hospitals are using whatsapp, so we have to have whatsapp. Many businesses are using IG, nudging us to also use IG. They all have reached critical mass in users that you just have to be in it to be relevant in the market. Even a small business now have to be in those platforms to be discovered. The market expects that you have whatsapp/IG/FB presence.

I really hope your country decides to do something about it. In the US, there’s no requirement for any of those services.

 

[robinp]

I really hope your country decides to do something about it. In the US, there’s no requirement for any of those services.

It’s very impressive to know everything about the whole country.

By impressive, I mean unbelievable in its literal sense.

 

[ian87w]

I really hope your country decides to do something about it. In the US, there’s no requirement for any of those services.

It's the expectation of the population and market. Due to critical mass of user adoption, the people expect any institutions to have a presence in the social media/messaging platforms. It's akin how you Americans expect any businesses to have a phone number to call, or email. Majority of the people here skipped the PC and went straight to smartphone. So people may not even have an email address, but they definitely have a whatsapp account. I cannot blame our government trying to be available in these channels for communications with the people, but obviously it gives more power to Facebook.

 

[Substance90]

just because Facebook buys every competitor doesn't make them a monopoly

It literally does make them a monopoly. That's the definition of monopoly.

Do we want to legislate a site becasue it is popular?

Yes, when they actively buy up all other sites that start becoming popular.

 

[Substance90]

double post

 

[darkcompass]

Yes, break them.

Break them into pieces.

This is the only tech company that needs an ass kicking.

In all probablility it'll make them more money and more power.

 

[jhende7]

Don’t really get this - kids these days don’t even use Facebook or Instagram.

Lots of competition in this space and barrier to entry is low. Gonna be hard to prosecute.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It’s very impressive to know everything about the whole country.

By impressive, I mean unbelievable in its literal sense.

Yup, it’s a gift of mine. There’s also no requirement in the US to sign in on Facebook before every meal, IT’S TRUE! Bet you didn’t know that. You may have heard of me, I’m literally Captain Obvious.

 

[robertosh]

Nah... this won't go ahead because Facebook will acquire the United States Federal Trade Commission.

 

[laptech]

It is the responsibility of the FTC to approve buyouts of such nature to prevent the situation they are now accusing Facebook of. Facebooks defence will be based on what have they done wrong because the FTC approved the buyouts of Instagram and Whatsapp in the first place so if the FTC are now saying that Facebook is in the wrong, the FTC are going to have to admit in court that they are incompetient because any argument the FTC put forward about Facebook covering up the true reasons for the buyout, any Judge will just throw it back at the FTC and say that it was their job to investigate and detect such underhandiness and thus refuse the buyout to continue.

If this does go to court, Facebooks lawyers will point out that as part of the legal process for buying out a company, they gave the FTC all the documentation that was required and was asked for so the buyout could be investigated and scrutinised. The FTC approved the buyouts.

It is the FTC's job to scrutinise potential buyouts to prevent antitrust and monoply issues and now they are accusing Facebook of things that the FTC are supposed to prevent in the first place. I cannot see Facebook losing this one.

 

[robinp]

It is the responsibility of the FTC to approve buyouts of such nature to prevent the situation they are now accusing Facebook of. Facebooks defence will be based on what have they done wrong because the FTC approved the buyouts of Instagram and Whatsapp in the first place so if the FTC are now saying that Facebook is in the wrong, the FTC are going to have to admit in court that they are incompetient because any argument the FTC put forward about Facebook covering up the true reasons for the buyout, any Judge will just throw it back at the FTC and say that it was their job to investigate and detect such underhandiness and thus refuse the buyout to continue.

This is just such a long sentence!

Anyway, the issue is that Facebook made representations at the time that were false. It should be no surprise there might be consequences to that.

The two major things that come to mind:
- That they weren't buying them to eliminate a potential competitor
- That they would not integrate the apps and data

Both of those things have since turned out to be a lie.

So are you saying the FTC shouldn't believe what they are told by companies making representations and commitments? If that's the case, you're suggesting the FTC should just act unilaterally and without consultation which would be a terrible bad thing.

 

[laptech]

This is just such a long sentence!

Anyway, the issue is that Facebook made representations at the time that were false. It should be no surprise there might be consequences to that.

The two major things that come to mind:
- That they weren't buying them to eliminate a potential competitor
- That they would not integrate the apps and data

Both of those things have since turned out to be a lie.

So are you saying the FTC shouldn't believe what they are told by companies making representations and commitments? If that's the case, you're suggesting the FTC should just act unilaterally and without consultation which would be a terrible bad thing.

everything you type is the responsibility of the FTC. It is their responsibility to look into if a company has ulterior motives in wanting to buyout another company.

Facebook would have said 'I want to buy Instagram', the FTC would have requested the reasons why, Facebook would give their reasons and then the FTC would have to investigate if what they are told is true or not. The same would apply when Facebook said they wanted buy Whatsapp.

Therefore, if what you say is true, in that Facebook made false representations to the FTC then surely it is the FTC's responsibility to check if what is being represented to them is true or not. The whole point of the FTC investigating company buyouts is to prevent antitrust issues and monolopy issues, something they are now accusing Facebook of breaching. If Facebook are in breach of antitrust and monoply issues, surely it's more of a case of the FTC not doing it's job properly rather than it being Facebooks fault for tryinig to fool them into agreeing to the buyouts.

 

[Analog Kid]

MySpace had a lot of traffic to a bunch of small blogs.

Facebook is hooked into almost every site on the internet and has DEEP analytics on nearly every internet user, whether they use the platform or not. Excepting only the tiniest few who know how to prevent their tracking. Tracking that provides them not just obscene revenue, but an entire galaxy of powerful players in business and politics and national security who depend on their tracking.

Comparing the two is... is PHENOMENALLY naive to just how much power Facebook holds.

That is my point. The problem should be addressed with privacy legislation, not anti-trust. Facebook will come and go but the problem will remain.

I don't want more competitors trying to collect, analyze and sell my personal information, I want zero doing so.

 

[robinp]

Therefore, if what you say is true, in that Facebook made false representations to the FTC then surely it is the FTC's responsibility to check if what is being represented to them is true or not.

So are you saying there should be no consequences to making untruthful submissions? Because somehow the FTC should be able to know everything?

 

[macfacts]

Does apple do this with the App Store?

I know Sony and Microsoft do this with games for Xbox and PlayStation. Not all exclusives are developed in house.

There is only 1 iOS app store.

 

[laptech]

So are you saying there should be no consequences to making untruthful submissions? Because somehow the FTC should be able to know everything?

The FTC will not know everything but they are to check 'everything'. The FTC will be complicit in their behaviour if they ONLY checked what was given to them by Facebook. Companies provide false information, CEO's lie and cheat to get what they need and what they want. CEO's are also deceptiive in preventing people from seeing things the CEO does not want them to see. This is a given in the business world and such practices go on time and time again. It is therefore the repsonsibility of the authourities to check, double check and triple check what is put infront of them. Sometimes stepping outside of the checking boundries is warranted to get at the truth.

 

[robinp]

The FTC will not know everything but they are to check 'everything'. The FTC will be complicit in their behaviour if they ONLY checked what was given to them by Facebook. Companies provide false information, CEO's lie and cheat to get what they need and what they want. CEO's are also deceptiive in preventing people from seeing things the CEO does not want them to see. This is a given in the business world and such practices go on time and time again. It is therefore the repsonsibility of the authourities to check, double check and triple check what is put infront of them. Sometimes stepping outside of the checking boundries is warranted to get at the truth.

For sure, but when it subsequently comes out that they were lied to and that commitments to keep products separate that were conditions of the approval are broken, of course it is reasonable to look at it again.

 

[MrTemple]

That is my point. The problem should be addressed with privacy legislation, not anti-trust. Facebook will come and go but the problem will remain.

I don't want more competitors trying to collect, analyze and sell my personal information, I want zero doing so.

If you don't break up the hegemonic power, then how you going to get serious privacy legislation enacted and enforced?

This aint the Schoolhouse Rocks world of politics. This is the real world and megacorps like Facebook wield power that half the fortune 500 companies put together do not.

 

[Analog Kid]

If you don't break up the hegemonic power, then how you going to get serious privacy legislation enacted and enforced?

This aint the Schoolhouse Rocks world of politics. This is the real world and megacorps like Facebook wield power that half the fortune 500 companies put together do not.

If that's true, then maybe we should arbitrarily charge Zuckerberg with murder? I mean, sure he probably hasn't killed anyone, but it would serve the goal of removing him from the CEO position and weakening Facebook so we could maybe write some other laws we need...

There are countries that would take that approach. They aren't great places to try and run a business...

 

[MrTemple]

If that's true, then maybe we should arbitrarily charge Zuckerberg with murder? I mean, sure he probably hasn't killed anyone, but it would serve the goal of removing him from the CEO position and weakening Facebook so we could maybe write some other laws we need...

There are countries that would take that approach. They aren't great places to try and run a business...

You are all over the map. I’m not even going to try to guess which point you’re going to make next, but there sure isn’t any reason to waste time trying to discuss this most recent non-sequitur.

 

[Analog Kid]

You are all over the map. I’m not even going to try to guess which point you’re going to make next, but there sure isn’t any reason to waste time trying to discuss this most recent non-sequitur.

Ok, good. So there's a limit to how badly you're willing to abuse the principles of rule of law. False accusations of murder against an individual make you uncomfortable, but you're still comfortable with false accusations of monopoly against a corporation if it "breaks up the hegemonic power" the "megacorps wield".

It's sounding a little Mr. Robot for my taste, but ok.


I don't think there's a very bright line between governments that enlist those two false accusations. I have real problems with the Facebook behaviors you're describing, but misapplying anti-trust law isn't going to solve it. And if your implication is that Facebook is so powerful that we can't get privacy legislation enforced, why do you think we'll get anti-trust legislation enforced?

Twisting the justice system to selectively break up companies you don't like for whatever reason, doesn't actually address the reason you don't like them, doesn't prevent that bad behavior from happening elsewhere, and is begging for further corrupt application of law.