Exactly how is it anticompetitive? Anyone can have a social media website. Are they actually blocking competitors?
This is just part of why anti-monopoly laws are ridiculous and they should all be stricken. Monopolies happen WHEN THERE ARE REGULATIONS which have the net effect of suppressing competition. Free markets don’t create monopolies!
Replace “Facebook” with “Apple” in the headline and see how many of these “Yes!!!” responses suddenly change in the same people defending Apple at every cost.
Typical behavior of blind followers.
Your next move going to be gum in or a pulling of the hair?
Sorry, but when you are in business, you seek to limit your competition. Label it Anti-trust or Anti-competitive if you like, but it's only reasonable to buy Instagram as a matter of good business. And what may be a near Monopoly within the USA is most assuredly not in China, which is a massive country everyone needs to ponder. China gains when America loses. And America is not gaining by breaking up its big tech firms. What you see in the news on this topic is merely a game of envy and revenge and the illusion of "protecting the little guy and increasing competition for the good of all consumers."
It's clear that you have zero understanding of even the fundamental concepts of antitrust law.
FaceBook is not being sued because it tried to limit competition. FaceBook is being sued because it used illegal means to limit competion, and harmed consumers as a result.
I can't find any concrete details of "illegal means" so far.
I'm no fan of Facebook, don't have an account, and think the big issue of user data and the opaque nature of how that's manipulated and sold is the real issue that should be addressed.
If there is evidence that Facebook "forced" otherwise independent companies to sell to them, or illegally harmed them in some other way, that's one thing. But most start-ups WANT to be noticed and bought out. That's their payday, their lifelong goal. It doesn't make any sense that the NY AG was warbling about Facebook "buying up" the competition... (and the big acquisitions were government approved as Facebook points out).
From an article in today’s Washington Post:
One anecdote central to the cases depicts Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom seeking advice from a company investor while considering a $1 billion offer to sell his company to Facebook in 2012: “Will he go into destroy mode if I say no?”
The answer: “Probably.”
Systrom soon decided to sell, taking an offer that, in the telling of the state and federal officials, he couldn’t really refuse.
I don’t believe it. First of all, because the WaPo engages in partisan reporting quite often, secondly because the CEO probably could’ve sought out other investors or buyers. He sold his company because it was a massive payday.
It's clear that you have zero understanding of even the fundamental concepts of antitrust law.
FaceBook is not being sued because it tried to limit competition. FaceBook is being sued because it used illegal means to limit competion, and harmed consumers as a result.
LOL. It's clear that you have zero understanding of those who oppose the fundamental premise of antitrust law.
I disagree with what is deemed "illegal means" to limit competition, and I strongly disagree that consumers were harmed insofar as the service is free. Yes, it is free, even if some wish to content it is somehow not free only because data is gleaned from us. If you have no cash money at all, and if you want a service, you ultimately have to pay for that service, even if the means of paying (giving up your personal data) isn't what most people really like.
The points made in my previous post still apply. These are home-grown US businesses that we should laud, not seek to tear down, especially with the US economy in shambles due to Corona lockdowns. Tearing down US companies with antitrust only serves the interest of those who seek to tear down American from abroad. It doesn't make us stronger. In the name of upholding law, order and consumer protection, it makes America vastly weaker overall.
If you dislike your personal information being sold or used in ways you dislike, or if you dislike targeted ads, you the consumer have it within your power to immediately stop all of that by deleting your FaceBook account. No intervention by Big Brother is necessary. It's called "personal responsibility."
It's clear that you have zero understanding of even the fundamental concepts of antitrust law.
FaceBook is not being sued because it tried to limit competition. FaceBook is being sued because it used illegal means to limit competion, and harmed consumers as a result.
LOL. It's clear that you have zero understanding of those who oppose the fundamental premise of antitrust law.
I disagree with what is deemed "illegal means" to limit competition, and I strongly disagree that consumers were harmed insofar as the service is free. Yes, it is free, even if some wish to content it is somehow not free only because data is gleaned from us. If you have no cash money at all, and if you want a service, you ultimately have to pay for that service, even if the means of paying (giving up your personal data) isn't what most people really like.
The points made in my previous post still apply. These are home-grown US businesses that we should laud, not seek to tear down, especially with the US economy in shambles due to Corona lockdowns. Tearing down US companies with antitrust only serves the interest of those who seek to tear down American from abroad. It doesn't make us stronger. In the name of upholding law, order and consumer protection, it makes America vastly weaker overall.
If you dislike your personal information being sold or used in ways you dislike, or if you dislike targeted ads, you the consumer have it within your power to immediately stop all of that by deleting your FaceBook account. No intervention by Big Brother is necessary. It's called "personal responsibility."
A late response here, but I can't ignore the last part of your comment, which is absolutely wrong.
One can choose to not have a fb account, but that doesn't stop fb from gathering personal about you. Many of your friends and family and business associates have a lot of information about you in their address books, including not just phone numbers, but birthdays, emails, physical addresses, relationships, likes/dislikes, and various notes that people like to keep. As soon as your friends decide to join fb, most of them give access to their address books, at which time all of your personal info leaks directly into fb's databases. These shadow profiles are well known, and should be banned legally, because there is no relationship or consent between those users and the company, but good luck getting that kind of legislation. Maybe, just maybe, over time, as consumers become more educated on these matters, but because most people just slide through life ignorantly taking what conveniently comes their way, I doubt it will happen any time soon.
Comments
I disagree with what is deemed "illegal means" to limit competition, and I strongly disagree that consumers were harmed insofar as the service is free. Yes, it is free, even if some wish to content it is somehow not free only because data is gleaned from us. If you have no cash money at all, and if you want a service, you ultimately have to pay for that service, even if the means of paying (giving up your personal data) isn't what most people really like.
The points made in my previous post still apply. These are home-grown US businesses that we should laud, not seek to tear down, especially with the US economy in shambles due to Corona lockdowns. Tearing down US companies with antitrust only serves the interest of those who seek to tear down American from abroad. It doesn't make us stronger. In the name of upholding law, order and consumer protection, it makes America vastly weaker overall.
If you dislike your personal information being sold or used in ways you dislike, or if you dislike targeted ads, you the consumer have it within your power to immediately stop all of that by deleting your FaceBook account. No intervention by Big Brother is necessary. It's called "personal responsibility."