FTC, 46 states file antitrust suit against Facebook, seek Instagram & WhatsApp break-up

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    This proposed type of breakup never makes sense.  The breakup of Facebook and Google and Twitter should be to create five (or ten) separate and identical Facebooks or Google or Twitter.  Just separating Instagram or WhatsApp does nothing to help consumers or reign in the monopolistic powers of the companies.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 45
    jdw said:
    Love them or hate them, all of these tech companies, INCLUDING APPLE, are America's home grown businesses that should be celebrated not destroyed by the over-reaching hand of Big Brother.  And I say this hating all the silly fact checking labels FaceBook puts on posts (and Twitter too), which in fact limit individual liberty, even if one can content those fact checkers are correct.  So even though I personally dislike various things about FaceBook and even Google, I would never ask Big Brother to step in and crush them for being Capitalists.  

    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."

    Also bear in mind that even though there is more digital blood being shed at the hand of the US Government at Google and FaceBook right now, Apple is still a target.  By supporting the anti-trust lawsuit mania, you are in fact supporting action against Apple too.  Just keep the in mind.
    Celebrating what exactly? And your argument about 'liberties' quite simply, not on target at all.  You are welcome say ridiculous things anywhere you want. But if you do it at any private company, online, in a film, or around the water cooler, that company doesn't have to listen to you, have their employees or clients listen to you and they can certainly fire you for what you say. These are private companies with chat-boards basically. If you don't like the rules you leave. The only issue is - has Facebook manipulated the market to gain control of...whatever market they say it's in. I think your 'liberty' argument is fairly easy to dismiss. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre? And 'facts' are real things, and they can be 'fact checked'. So putting labels on BS seems like nothing more than another step in a long history of people who say false things being held accountable. You do not know what the future holds anymore than Facebook. This case might be great for further internet development or it might not be. But historically breaking up monopolies has proven very difficult and I wouldn't expect this to be easy especially since Facebook's acquisitions were OK'd by the Govt. So they will need to get over that hurdle. But please, a persons rights are not being infringed when a company points out that the person is posting incorrect info. One can always tell things to impressionable friends or relatives without any interference from people who actually have facts available to them. But there is no reason to force others to lower the bar for sake of making a person feel OK about not having relevant facts at hand and spreading incorrect information. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 45
    jdw said:
    Love them or hate them, all of these tech companies, INCLUDING APPLE, are America's home grown businesses that should be celebrated not destroyed by the over-reaching hand of Big Brother.  And I say this hating all the silly fact checking labels FaceBook puts on posts (and Twitter too), which in fact limit individual liberty, even if one can content those fact checkers are correct.  So even though I personally dislike various things about FaceBook and even Google, I would never ask Big Brother to step in and crush them for being Capitalists.  

    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."

    Also bear in mind that even though there is more digital blood being shed at the hand of the US Government at Google and FaceBook right now, Apple is still a target.  By supporting the anti-trust lawsuit mania, you are in fact supporting action against Apple too.  Just keep the in mind.
    The ironic thing is that these companies are overwhelming left (right, wrong, or indifferent) and its the left that wants to split these companies up (no doubt some pressure from the right in recent years). The left doesn't like big companies (right, wrong, or indifferent), I just hope when they come to overwhelming power (which I think they will), all of these tech companies suffer with the rest.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 45
    thrangthrang Posts: 901member
    flydog said:
    jdw said:

    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).

    So would the government propose PREVENTING small companies from selling themselves to larger companies in the name of some greater good? Better they go out of business? Should companies not offer people more money to jump ship and join them (poach, to use a negative phrase). Thus, should be telling individuals your income potential will be limited for some greater good?

    I'm dubious until we see a lot more evidence presented.



    williamlondonn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 45
    lkrupp said:
    The irony here is that the FTC was the one who approved the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions in the first place. 

    I think that’s simply down to the FTC having no clue about social media and where it would go.

    When a large oil company wants to buy up the next two biggest competitors it’s easy to understand what they’re trying to do and the issues it raises. Not so with WhatsApp and Instagram.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 45
    lkrupp said:
    All fun and games until they go after Apple.

    Doubt it. Apple hasn’t done anything to compare with Facebook (bought out competitors to gain control of a single market).

    Imagine if Apple tried to buy Spotify so they’d end up with a “monopoly” on streaming music? Or Netflix plus Prime to become a monopoly in video streaming?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 45
    I have zero sympathy for Facebook, but even I think this is government overreach.
    Agreed! Also, paved roads are government overreach.
    edited December 2020 dewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 45
    Apple, Microsoft, and just about every other major corporation engages in the same actions mentioned in this lawsuit.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 45
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    lkrupp said:
    All fun and games until they go after Apple.
    It’s not fun and games. It’s management of civilization.

    Facebook is an anticompetitive bastard of a corporation.

    Apple is also overreaching, but they’re not yet egregiously harming society; they even have actual pro-society policies.

    Facebook uses the *concept* of society to intentionally *exploit* & inadvertently-but-irresponsibly affect and *harm* society for profit.

    There’s quite a difference.

    I wouldn’t be at all bothered to see Facebook shut down entirely. I would also not be bothered to see Apple ordered to get out of the finance, automotive, & media markets, and that’s with me fully appreciating iTunes.
    photography guy
  • Reply 30 of 45
    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.   
  • Reply 31 of 45
    It's about friggin' time.

    Personally, I think that there needs to be more oversight and transparency about how algorithms are designed and how they work. Tech giants also need more accountability for how they manage user data.

    One of the things I've admired most about Apple is how they have put user security and privacy at the core/foundation of their mission and methods, whereas Google and Facebook have played fast and loose with user data.
    n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 45
    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.   

    Apple and Facebook are not in the same ballpark; they're not even playing the same game when it comes to privacy and security. Facebook's entire business is built on mining as much data as possible from users and having complete control over that data, all for their own profit. Apple on the other hand has put user privacy and security as top priority. Apple has been transparent about how they use their customers' data, and have built their entire reputation on protecting their customers. With Apple, users are their customers. With Facebook, users are their product.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 45
    Proof that copying and executing a good idea is better than buying one. Apple better watch out with their 30 plus acquisitions a year.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 34 of 45
    Sarkany said:
    Apple, Microsoft, and just about every other major corporation engages in the same actions mentioned in this lawsuit.
    Whataboutism, and just another idiotic statement.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 45
    Sarkany said:
    Apple, Microsoft, and just about every other major corporation engages in the same actions mentioned in this lawsuit.
    Whataboutism, and just another idiotic statement.
    Cry me a river.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 36 of 45
    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.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 37 of 45
    thrang said:
    flydog said:
    jdw said:

    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.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 45
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,092member
    I don't really understand what the allegation is.  The article mentions a "buy or bury" attitude, but buy isn't illegal (especially not when the FTC has agreed to the deal), and there's no detail given about what bury entails.

    I get and share the privacy concerns, but that doesn't on the surface to be an antitrust issue, it's a different kind of issue.
  • Reply 39 of 45
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,519member
    MplsP said:
    wood1208 said:
    What good is Second Amendment of Constitution right to keep and bear arms:unless you use it on these goverment morons. American politicians and judiciary system has become arrogant and bully and using their power to destroy their own. It takes lot and years of handwork, innovation to create big successful company like Facebook, Google, Apple,etc. China and many countries are happy to see infighting and waiting Americans companies to get weak and vanished so they can fill the vacuum and take over one by one.
    I guess the term ‘well regulated’ doesn’t mean anything to you
    I am not advocating revolution or anything implied by the post you quoted and replied to, but it is clear that you don’t have a clue what “well regulated” means in the 2A.   

    Hint: it has nothing to do with the modern term of regulations and government control and everything to do with the more archaic meaning of regulation as in “regulating your clock/watch”, which was a more common use of the word in the 1700s when it was originally written. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 45
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,092member
    chadbag said:
    MplsP said:
    wood1208 said:
    What good is Second Amendment of Constitution right to keep and bear arms:unless you use it on these goverment morons. American politicians and judiciary system has become arrogant and bully and using their power to destroy their own. It takes lot and years of handwork, innovation to create big successful company like Facebook, Google, Apple,etc. China and many countries are happy to see infighting and waiting Americans companies to get weak and vanished so they can fill the vacuum and take over one by one.
    I guess the term ‘well regulated’ doesn’t mean anything to you
    I am not advocating revolution or anything implied by the post you quoted and replied to, but it is clear that you don’t have a clue what “well regulated” means in the 2A.   

    Hint: it has nothing to do with the modern term of regulations and government control and everything to do with the more archaic meaning of regulation as in “regulating your clock/watch”, which was a more common use of the word in the 1700s when it was originally written. 
    Sounds like it's time to rewrite that amendment then, if the language is so archaic that it's no longer fit for purpose. What does it even mean then? You regulate a clock by winding it up, what do you do a militia to ensure it is well-regulated? I can't see a gun show with no background checks selling to any old Simon with enough greenbacks is exactly what the founders had in mind either. I presume it's training, chain of command, duty and honour maybe, and unlikely to be anything about open carrying at poltical rallies, or keeping guns at home under the pillow just in case the boogie man climbs through the window. Bit beside the point anyway. If gun nuts are going to shoot up the capital to defend Facebook's right to screw up the internet then it's past the point of high time to rethink that amendment and into a full-on parody of how a society should work.
Sign In or Register to comment.