Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

FTC wants to break up Facebook

Buzzrock

By Buzzrock
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The DOJ has sued Google.

Yeah, I listened to an excellent discussion on this topic by the National Constitution Center. The suit seemed to be focused on Google paying Apple to be the default browser on Apple products. Seems like if Apple agrees to end that practice, the DOJ might drop the suit. It's a start, but doesn't address the monopoly Google has on Data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23584

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Bevo&Pevo said:

don't use it, don't care

I dont use it, but would like to see that shitheap of a company kneecapped. A dangerously dishonest company masquerading behind a bullshit mission statement of bringing the world closer together. Their mission is to make fuck tons of money exploiting their user base, and the country is worse off because of it. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaggerHorns

DaggerHorns 3102

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I dont use it, but would like to see that shitheap of a company kneecapped. A dangerously dishonest company masquerading behind a bullshit mission statement of bringing the world closer together. Their mission is to make fuck tons of money exploiting their user base, and the country is worse off because of it. 

Solid summary.

Social media platforms like this have done nothing but increase division, shame free speech, value and repeat meaningless opinions, increase suicide, decrease face to face personal communication, and support lies.

Zuckerberg has never been more than a dork running a platform. That has always been the root of the problem.

He has no interest in resolving issues because he’s never understood how to be a good guy. Nothing more than a dweeb with a wallet.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13528

Posted
Posted

I get that "everyone" hates Facebook but that alone can't be the reason they are broken up. It would seem that any argument has to be centered on how they use their Instagram and Whats App data tie-in to harm either users or maybe ad buyers.

I'm not really sure how Whats App works itself into the conversation about breaking them up. Isn't it just another chat tool? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pearlandhorn

pearlandhorn 3274

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fuck Facebook, but shouldn't they be going after Google & Amazon first? 

Yeah, if they could wait until coronavirus pandemic ends to go after amazon, it would be much appreciated.

Honestly though, the way that Amazon has grown in the last 5 years is truly a testament to innovation.  Don't want to go all cloak room here, but a business that can grow the way they have by buying companies to expand their supply chain and provide customers with better customer service is OK by me.  Consumers get more benefits, company makes more money for shareholders.  Or am I completely off base here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted

Amazon is a bit of a different animal, I think.

It's super-diversified and its various business models aren't focused on using privacy data for profit.  So while it is powerful, it is still subject to quite a bit of competition in the areas in which it competes.

Antitrust law is confused about whether it protects the notion of competition or consumers themselves.  Theoretically, at least, by protecting and maximizing competition, consumers are helped by lower prices and wider choices.  But the reality of many situations is that the monopolist often provides the best price, at least under current, as opposed to ideal, market conditions.

The Google and Facebook suits have the advantage, I think, of having clear benefits to both competition and to consumers.

The accumulation of privacy data by both entities is not directly addressed by the antitrust laws, but breakup and other remedies could result in "deconsolidation" of it, directly or indirectly.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2119

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

Solid summary.

Social media platforms like this have done nothing but increase division, shame free speech, value and repeat meaningless opinions, increase suicide, decrease face to face personal communication, and support lies.

Zuckerberg has never been more than a dork running a platform. That has always been the root of the problem.

He has no interest in resolving issues because he’s never understood how to be a good guy. Nothing more than a dweeb with a wallet.

Like I said before, they're supposed to be a platform. How are those things thier fault? How is he supposed to resolve millions of people's issues? The only thing I really disagree with is the selling of personal information. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted

I suppose we should back up and talk about what is antitrust law.

There are two main violations of antitrust law.  The first is agreements in restraint of trade, which is basically any concerted action between two or more parties for anti-competitive purposes.  The classic example is a conspiracy among industry participants to fix prices or divide a territorial market.  The second main violation of antitrust law is to be a monopolist, which means to have "market power" and to take anti-competitive actions that maintain or increase that power.  Market power classically means the ability to unilaterally set prices.  Anti-competitive actions are things that tend to resemble the agreements in restraint of trade, but can be unilateral and the definition tends to be less rigorous.  The classic example is to buy up a competitor.

Both of the Google and Facebook cases accuse them of being monopolists.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13528

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Amazon is a bit of a different animal, I think.

It's super-diversified and its various business models aren't focused on using privacy data for profit.  So while it is powerful, it is still subject to quite a bit of competition in the areas in which it competes.

Antitrust law is confused about whether it protects the notion of competition or consumers themselves.  Theoretically, at least, by protecting and maximizing competition, consumers are helped by lower prices and wider choices.  But the reality of many situations is that the monopolist often provides the best price, at least under current, as opposed to ideal, market conditions.

The Google and Facebook suits have the advantage, I think, of having clear benefits to both competition and to consumers.

The accumulation of privacy data by both entities is not directly addressed by the antitrust laws, but breakup and other remedies could result in "deconsolidation" of it, directly or indirectly.

For Amazon, I think someone would have to prove their are using their platform to harm their partners and customers. I know Amazon can be tough on their people selling items via Amazon but usually its for the benefit of the customer. I don't know of widespread stories of Amazon screwing customers and partner for Amazon's benefit. I'm sure some examples can be found but are they rare exceptions are the rule?

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Like I said before, they're supposed to be a platform. How are those things thier fault? How is he supposed to resolve millions of people's issues? The only thing I really disagree with is the selling of personal information. 

But you agree to that with their terms of service.  Don't get me wrong. I think Facebook should offer the ability to opt out of selling your info but I think it would be fair for them to ask you to pay for FB then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

The only thing I really disagree with is the selling of personal information. 

Congress should act on this. There should be a law that states your Personal Information cannot be sold without your permission and "Terms of Service" shouldn't enter you into a binding agreement to sell your information. That would solve much of the Google/Facebook issues. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19264

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bevo&Pevo said:

don't use it, don't care

FYI, Facebook and other companies compile and aggregate data about even about people who arent on the platform.

99% chance they a profile of who you are (identity, interests, relationships) even if you dont "use" their service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2119

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

But you agree to that with their terms of service.  Don't get me wrong. I think Facebook should offer the ability to opt out of selling your info but I think it would be fair for them to ask you to pay for FB then. 

As @Cheeseweasel said. Congress should protect citizens from that. Definitely an opt out would be a nice edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 43546

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

For Amazon, I think someone would have to prove their are using their platform to harm their partners and customers.

I might be mistaken - but I'm not sure that's how antitrust laws work. It might prevent them from having a suit brought against them, but the point isn't whether they are doing harm or good in the economy - the point is what are they capable of doing? Take YouTube for example - they might not be price setting or controlling the market (although I think they are starting to play around with this) - but what if they came out tomorrow and said: "you can't view anymore videos on YouTube until you pay us $50". Well, I can't just go to a different website and access YT's library - and there are massive barriers to entry for anyone wanting to take advantage if YT did something like that. 

Now - I don't think Amazon is that monopolistic or anticompetitive. For starters, their entire business model is about getting the consumer the lowest price possible. Anyone can come along and get business by simply selling cheaper than Amazon. Take the example above - if Amazon said "pay us $100 if you want to continue using Amazon" most people would tell them to fuck off and simply buy elsewhere. There isn't really anything on Amazon that you can't simply obtain somewhere else. It might be more expensive, but it should be easily obtainable. That isn't the case with something like YT or Facebook to an extent. 

Edited by ztejas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerry Callo

Jerry Callo 8734

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Congress should act on this. There should be a law that states your Personal Information cannot be sold without your permission and "Terms of Service" shouldn't enter you into a binding agreement to sell your information. That would solve much of the Google/Facebook issues. 

Download the app.  Open newly downloaded app and be required to check "you can sell my personal information."  Don't check, don't get to use app.  Almost everyone downloading the app will check the box.  Congress hasn't protected anyone from anything and spent a billion dollars in the procees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2119

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I might be mistaken - but I'm not sure that's how antitrust laws work. It might prevent them from having a suit brought against them, but the point isn't whether they are doing harm or good in the economy - the point is what are they capable of doing? Take YouTube for example - they might not be price setting or controlling the market (although I think they are starting to play around with this) - but what if they came out tomorrow and said: "you can't view anymore videos on YouTube until you pay us $50". Well, I can't just go to a different website and access YT's library - and there are massive barriers to entry for anyone wanting to take advantage if YT did something like that. 

Now - I don't think Amazon is that monopolistic or anticompetitive. For starters, their entire business model is about getting the consumer the lowest price possible. Anyone can come along and get business by simply selling cheaper than Amazon. Take the example above - if Amazon said "pay us $100 if you want to continue using Amazon" most people would tell them to fuck off and simply buy elsewhere. There isn't really anything on Amazon that you can't simply obtain somewhere else. It might be more expensive, but it should be easily attainable. That isn't the case with something like YT or Facebook to an extent. 

Bitchute just met their financial goal, but I don't think they have the servers to handle the traffic.

Edited by workswithseed
Had to reread, and don't want @bolveroc mad mad at me for spelling their wrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23584

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Like I said before, they're supposed to be a platform. How are those things thier fault? How is he supposed to resolve millions of people's issues? The only thing I really disagree with is the selling of personal information. 

So basically their core business. “But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/19/98-personal-data-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to-you/

The "platform" isnt the valuable product. Their users are. Its amazing how many people overlook that. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13528

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Jerry Callo said:

Download the app.  Open newly downloaded app and be required to check "you can sell my personal information."  Don't check, don't get to use app.  Almost everyone downloading the app will check the box.  Congress hasn't protected anyone from anything and spent a billion dollars in the procees.

100%. Most people really don't care about their info being sold because it effectively puts money in their pocket since FB is free to them. Sure people are creeped out when hearing about it, and of course they don't want their data sold but they're unwilling to go the other direction.

Now I'm ok if the govt forced companies to be more transparent about exactly which organizations are paying to seeing your personal data, and how much revenue FB received for it. 

And to be technical, FB doesn't exactly sell your data. They allow advertisers to target you based on your information but they're smart enough to lock down that info. If they sold it, they would lose control of it. And you also have the ability to prevent your private data from being used to target you. But I'm sure 99% of users have the default settings.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12500

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I agree, but that's not an Antitrust issue. 

I know.  I'm just hitting on why there seems to be a lot of popular support to break these companies up, even if there isn't much of an anti-trust issue.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaggerHorns

DaggerHorns 3102

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Blotto said:

So basically their core business. “But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/19/98-personal-data-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to-you/

The "platform" isnt the valuable product. Their users are. Its amazing how many people overlook that. 

This sums it up. You are a wise man.

The algorithms they create feed putrid trash to incite more division than ever.

As a business owner, if someone comes into my restaurant spouting bullshit, lies and encouraging division, it’s MY responsibility to kick them the fuck out.

If you disagree with this premise, you have a different level of ethics than me.

While I understand freedom of speech, our forefathers did not anticipate FB being a platform that they police.

Furthermore; I don’t believe that people should be shamed either. If you run a clean shop, you won’t have these problems regardless of your constitutional interpretations.

Below is on of the most insightful speeches I’ve witnessed about the world in the last decade. 
 

I assure you is worth viewing. You would think this type of speech from this man would be some maniacal rant subject to his twisted comedy, however it’s more spot on than any political or social influence you’ve ever heard from.

Please watch from the beginning.

 

Edited by DaggerHorns
Video starts later, not my intention.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 43546

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I'm saying that is Youtube's biggest competitor.

Oh. Well it isn't a question of handling traffic it's all about the content library. Which is basically impossible to replicate and why YT doesn't really have any relevant competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CDAK

CDAK 216

Posted
Posted

Team Facebook. The FTC approved the WhatsApp and IG purchases when they occurred. Now, the FTC is saying the mergers violate competition law? 

Many people and government actors dislike FB. Look at all the comments here about polarization, users are the product, platforms should be responsible for the content users upload, etc. These reasons for dislike have nothing to do with competition law. The FTC and state AGs shouldn't be twisting competition law to target FB because they dislike FB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Continental Op

Continental Op 3934

Posted
Posted

I think the beef with Amazon stems from the fact that their platform is a monopoly and now they are trying to wield that power in a way that suppresses competition by highlighting their house brand stuff in certain product segments.  I'm sure that's wrong and one of the 98% of Surly posters who are attorneys and want to tell everyone they are attorneys will be along shortly to correct me though. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34338

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Amazon has a monopoly on what though?  What is the market they have monopolized? Selling shit?  Walmart sells shit.  Target sells shit. Costco sells shit.  They all sell shit online.

costco doesn't act as a store front for other stores.  walmart is kinda trying to do that, target has dipped a toe in the water, but amazon's only real competition in that particular sphere is ebay.  and ebay doesn't also sell its own shit alongside.  and doesn't also operate a huge server farm business and ad business. 

amazon's biggest monopolizing sin is probably propping up its retail biz all these years. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...