FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization (ftc.gov) 122
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. FTC: Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy -- including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers -- to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition. The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions. "Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans," said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "Facebook's actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook's anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive."
It amazes me (Score:3)
Re:It amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't the really funny part that the FTC approved both acquisitions? :)
Funny strange, not really... funny ha-ha, maybe a little, given the target.
Corporations such as Facebook are, as evidenced by their generous political contributions to both sides of the aisle, acutely aware that political will and landscapes change like the wind.
It's entirely possible the outgoing administration may be taking a dim view of social media giants right this very minute.
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible the outgoing administration may be taking a dim view of social media giants right this very minute.
Yes, but they are not alone and it is a very bipartisan opinion when 46 of 50 states join in.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties think that Facebook hurts them in elections more than it helps. Campaign contributions can't salvage that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the really funny part that the FTC approved both acquisitions? :)
With an assurance from Facebook they would not act in an anticompetitive manner. So what is the FTC to do if they ultimately do act in an anticompetitive manner? Perhaps change their opinion as the data changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right*. Facebook have abused and/or broken the agreement made when the acquisitions happened, so they're being sued for that abuse.
*(Except for pedantry that a datum changes, but data change.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not going after FB for anti trust (Score:2)
If they cared about anti-trust in as much as it applies to consumers the T-Mobile/Sprint merger would have been blocked along with dozens of billion dollar mergers in the financial world that didn't make
TL;DR: The FTC does not enforce ant-trust laws and hasn't
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's philosophy in life is transactional. I do something for you, you do something for me He doesn't see any other worldview, including one of philanthropy, fairness, kindness, or anything else.
Just "I did something for you, you owe me back". There was logic to stacking the Supreme Court - Trump w
Myspace is still around (Score:2)
Monopoly Schmonopoly. There ARE other social networks. Myspace still exists!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Myspace is still around (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook actively sought out and successfully purchased Instagram and WhatsApp. When you start using your money to buy up or stonewall any possible threat to you that's when the problems start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a free service count as a monopoly?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly
Note the "illegally maintaining" part.
When Comcast does it, it's not illegal (Score:1)
just paraphrasing an old thing
Can someone explain why Facebook is an issue? (Score:2)
What competitors did they crush? They bought instagram, but I always view Instagram as more of a crippled competitor to Flickr than Facebook. Google+, a direct competitor, failed without Facebook's help. Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, an
Re:Can someone explain why Facebook is an issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, easily. But you can bet it involved lobbyists. Nothing will come of this either. Money will be exchanged, asses will be kissed and that is the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Could the FTC have stopped the acquisitions?
Between 2 US firms in the communications space? Yes, of course...
Yeah, we achieved bipartisan unity (Score:2)
This seems like a politically motivated shakedown.
Then we have achieved the promised bipartisan unity people have hoped for, 46 of 50 states joined in this action.
Re: (Score:3)
Need to outlaw non-facebook using FB login (Score:5, Informative)
That is the real sneaky bastard monopoly play. When dating apps require facebook login that is facebook owning the dating app without buying them. They get all the info they sell which is what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Not outlaw, regulate. There are real benefits to having centralised login services. But preventing the sharing of private information beyond that immediately necessary for the login should definitely be outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Those sites, such as dating sites, could simply not use them. Come to think, I'm not sure why they do besides allowing themselves to opt out of managing passwords.
It's not clear to me that Facebook is leveraging these companies to make use of this service. So that's really on them.
Deleted my facebook today (Score:1)
I've had facebook for 18 years and deleted my account today.
Someone told me to kill myself on facebook.
I replied who says stuff like that to strangers? You sound like a POS.
He reported me. Facebook said I was harassing him and that I'm a bully.
I appealed. They confirmed I am a bully and my behavior is inappropriate on their platform.
I am not allowed to stand up for myself or defend myself on facebook.
Then I deleted my account. I suppose I will go the extra step and delete whatsapp and instagram too.
Fuck fac
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to see what kind of point you have to prove here? Usually, when individuals "boycott" a service because they don't like their treatment, this only harms the individual who can't benefit from the service. Everyone else keeps moving on. Most people will read your comments above as "sounds like a bitter, angry person, who probably did something to get banned."
None of this anecd
Re:Deleted my facebook today (Score:4)
I didn't get banned, I got warned. And I am definitely bitter and angry but also self aware and honest
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you think i should kill myself too?
Fuck it say the word I fucking hate my life. I will live stream and kill myself right now and name you in the video.
Fucking say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
#1 youre full of shit if you expected me to be ready to die
#2 i wasn't banned from anything
and #3 there is no help, all of my friends left me because i am too sad to be around. nobody gives a flying fuck. and that is the truth. Nobody really gives a shit and human beings are fucking trash bags.
And #4 I just logged into facebook to get your dumbass a screenshot and i got this notification lol
"We're sorry we got this wrong. We reviewed your comment again and it does follow our Community Standards.
We appreciat
Re: (Score:3)
Please get help, you clearly need it. No one on here told you to kill yourself. No one implied it and no one said it was right that someone might have said it on FB.
This is not a joke, please get help.
Is all this drama and angst worth a meaningless FB post about Game of Thrones?
It has now spilled over into at least one other website, I am sure others. Is it worth it?
Please get help.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I do standup comedy and sometimes the only way to get cancellations of events is a posting on facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I recommended someone watch game of thrones and they said that the book was better.
I was a brat and told them that saying "the book is better" is not an opinion its a tired ass cliche that nobody has appreciated hearing for at least 60 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I recommended someone watch game of thrones and they said that the book was better.
I was a brat and told them that saying "the book is better" is not an opinion its a tired ass cliche that nobody has appreciated hearing for at least 60 years.
Fine, then you got hit by a Facebook fact checker for your false statements. ;-)
Re: Deleted my facebook today (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Aww you poor soul taking it upon yourself to stop the spread of misinformation.
You might a well build a giant sandcastle by the beach tide!!
I was considering buying an oculus quest.
Now I am definitely never buying a product that requires a facebook account.
Re: Deleted my facebook today (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck FTC, you're going to need it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Suing a company to break up / divest its purchases after you were the ones who expressly approved them is mindblowingly ballsy. I wish the FTC all the best of luck but I have my suspicions that this suit won't get very far.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish the FTC all the best of luck but I have my suspicions that this suit won't get very far.
After five years, and millions of billable hours, FB will agree to not do anything bad again (double double promise promise), and pay a fine of $20B which they will earn in less than a year. And then FB will go back to their old ways.
Re: (Score:2)
That's almost certainly the outcome. This is just an old fashioned shakedown.
I hope Salesforce is on the antimonopoly list (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole Salesforce ecosystem is so bad I have a hard time believing it exists. And they keep ladling more shit onto it.
How is an IRC knockoff worth nearly $30B I have no idea. How is it materially better than the other 3 systems that SF uses to chat.
SF must have a really good sales team to keep peddling their system.
Doesn't solve the problem... (Score:2)
...they're still a monopoly for their primary platform style. Instead, they should be required to implement an open standard interface to interact with other providers.
Nothing will happen of any significance (Score:2)
Facebook and other social media companies bricked up the doorways that were used during the 2016 election and they got the result they wanted. So nothing it going to happen to them until there's another change of ideology in Washington.
Salvation of the Oculus? (Score:3)
Maybe this will force them to remove the account requirement for the Oculus Quest? [theverge.com]
Microsoft, Google, Twitter and Amazon? (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft, Google, Twitter and Amazon? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you looking the other way?
Please describe your complaints with specifics. As far as I can tell in terms of monopolies on social networks and communication there is no alternative to Facebook and in my country I wouldn't be able to function without WhatsApp. On the other hand I'm not sure what Microsoft has to do with my Linux PC, Google has to do with my non-Google life, and what even is a Twitter/Amazon? Is that like birds in a forest?
I'm being slightly facetious, but Antitrust suits do not just apply to big companies. You need specific and actionable examples of anticompetitive practices which have direct examples of harm for antitrust suits to go ahead. I'm inclined to believe the best case you'd have is against Amazon, but really I highly suspect even this Facebook lawsuit will go nowhere.
Hypocrisy and Socialism. (Score:2)
It's interesting that this has only become an issue when they started censoring the "wrong" posts (according to politicians). If opposing politicians came up with this, it'd be derided as Socialism and an attack on the Free Market. Just a continuing confirmation of the narrow mindedness people cling to.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
In the United States, antitrust law [wikipedia.org] is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations and are generally intended to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890 [wikipedia.org], the Clayton Act of 1914 [wikipedia.org] and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 [wikipedia.org].
Ain't like anyone just up and changed the rules without notice, regardless of what Facebook might have told you.
Re: (Score:3)
In the United States, antitrust law [wikipedia.org] is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations and are generally intended to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890 [wikipedia.org], the Clayton Act of 1914 [wikipedia.org] and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 [wikipedia.org].
Ain't like anyone just up and changed the rules without notice, regardless of what Facebook might have told you.
True -- and note that I'm no fan of Facebook; I closed my account in 2010 or so after they changed my privacy settings on me for the third time and have refused to create another -- it's a little bit like changing the rules since the things that the FTC is complaining about, acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, were both evaluated by the FTC for competitive concerns before they were allowed to proceed.
So, the FTC first told Facebook their acquisitions were okay, and is now telling them that their acquis
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC is basically saying facebook blatantly lied
They are? I haven't seen that claim in any of the articles I've read. Do you have a source for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that sounds anticompetitive. I suppose the problem is in the summaries created by journalists, which imply that the FTC is claiming that the acquisitions were anticompetitive, but what that paragraph describes is anticompetitive actions subsequent to the acquisitions. The Vine thing, for example, seems like a case of exploitation of a monopoly in one market to protect a product in another market, which is classic anti-trust violation.
I suppose I should know better than to trust newspaper articles ab
Re:Hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)
The key item for antitrust law is that whole "competition" part. The problem with completely unregulated capitalism is that once monopolies are established, there is no longer a level playing field for competition. I should note that a monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is anticompetitive behavior.
I smell a rat (Score:1, Troll)
Oh. The smell was just an AC.
However I'm deeply suspicious of anything that the current American government does, even when it seems superficially right. Yes, there is a REAL problem with Facebook's abuse of personal information. Probably the single largest collection of brainphishing ammunition in the world. But any solution coming from these clowns and smelly rats is likely to make the situation worse. Potentially much worse.
Solution approach? Two branches. One is increasing freedom and the other is incre
Re: (Score:1)
First branch is by creating choices other than Facebook.
Myspace [myspace.com].. There are more... There is no monopoly
Social media must be regulated to protect mass media's control of the narrative
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-3
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-5
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-4
Re: (Score:3)
Oh. The smell was just an AC.
However I'm deeply suspicious of anything that the current American government does, even when it seems superficially right. Yes, there is a REAL problem with Facebook's abuse of personal information. Probably the single largest collection of brainphishing ammunition in the world. But any solution coming from these clowns and smelly rats is likely to make the situation worse. Potentially much worse.
Solution approach? Two branches. One is increasing freedom and the other is increasing freedom.
First branch is by creating choices other than Facebook. Not a penalty for success, but rather an incentive program to reproduce the good ideas in Facebook into more companies that actually compete with each other. (Surely there must be SOME good ideas somewhere in Facebook?) If there were options of competing Facebooks (with industry-wide standards for searches to span them), then we could choose where which one we trust. More choice = more freedom.
Second branch is by letting us control who has our personal information. Collecting our personal information should default to illegal and being caught with and using the personal information without the knowledge of the person involved should be a crime. This one is actually a can of worms from a technical perspective, though the philosophic principles are clear enough. The link to increasing freedom in this branch is by making the brainphishing less convenient (even though gamesters are gonna game and you can never stop fighting 'em).
I guess that's enough troll censor moderation to justify quoting the comment back into normal visibility. After all, anything that offends them must have some substance, even when I disagree with it. (No, I don't disagree with this one. At least not so soon and in the absence of fresh evidence or better analysis. But such "critics" demonstrably have nothing but censorious mod points.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I am thinking along similar lines, though I am thinking of dividing Facebook right down the middle. Or maybe better into thirds or quarters. Each daughter Facebook would start with the same interface and evolve from there. We would be able to freely pick the version we like while still having the same kind of visibility to the same data through the standard interfaces. (My own choice would be for the version of Facebook that had the best mechanism for visualizing how my data appeared from other perspec
Re: I smell a rat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Internet content should never be regulated. Service provision, the monopolies there are closer to the Railroads/Standard Oil analogy, where there is no choice. The internet is wide open, aside from the service providers directing traffic (after all, they are the government's enforcers). Let's work on them. Make them common carriers. That will open up the internet even wider for real competition.
Social media competes with regular mass media's propaganda machine. That's the only reason for the desire to regul
Re: (Score:2)
capitalist system that encourages competition amongst people and companies ... Then, when that happens, we scream "monopoly!!!!" and punish, break up, and prosecute the people that did the best under the capitalist rules.
You are never punished for rising to the top -- competition is good by all accounts. Monopoly is not illegal.
However, when someone gains enough power to shut down competitors (preventing them from competing) that becomes a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes.... you are very much punished for rising to the top when your industry itself becomes very popular.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you failed to comprehend what GP said. Rising to the top is not punished in the US. The only thing you get punished for is anti-competitive practices, and you don't even have to rise to the top to be prosecuted for them.
Twitter hasn't been punished, and it's pretty damn popular..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing I can do at this point is ask you to read the applicable laws. If you do, you'll find that your ideas don't comport with them.
For instance, There is nothing in US law that says anything like "if you control too much of a market, you are guilty of an antitrust violation." There is also nothing in US law that says "if a company can't compete with you profitably, you are guilty of an antitrust violation."
Here's an obvious example. Microsoft. The antitrust action take by the Justice Departme
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not... I am suggesting only that the laws that prohibit anti-competitive behavior set up a growing company to eventually become guilty of it once they *DO* become sufficiently popular, unless they are able to get bought out by some other company before reaching that point.
Without prohibiting it explicitly, it still essentially limits how successful a company can le
Re: (Score:2)
So, the language of the law doesn't matter, the case law borne from it doesn't matter, and the real life example I gave you - with the DOJ saying Microsoft's monopoly isn't against the law - well that doesn't matter either.
And not only that, but the law itself leads companies to violate the law.
Sure, man. Whatever you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is exactly what it does.... when the industry involved happens to be popular enough.
It does not do that in niche markets.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not do that in niche markets.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The FTC/DOJ have brought many antitrust suits against corporations in "niche" markets. [ftc.gov]
Instead of repeating these false ideas of yours, ideas for which you cite absolutely no authority, you should do a little research and educate yourself.
I suggest starting here. [ftc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that antitrust suits could not be brought against niche markets, only that the laws which could permit them effectively limit how popular a company can become when it is *NOT* in a niche market.
What may or may not happen in narrow markets is immaterial to my point.
*OUTSIDE* of niche markets, a successful company that is supplying a service where competition might exist for a period of time will either grow until it gets bought out by some other company, or be the company that does the buyi
Re: (Score:2)
That's OT here, but the reason I have no problem with the former is that it would only impact the freedom of people who are doing things wrong, the latter impacts the freedom of *everyone*, impacting the privacy of people who have done everything right.
There's a well known saying that is typically attributed to Ben Franklin about a society that wo
Re: (Score:2)
Except when you take steps like buying up the competition, strong arming subcontractors (Amazon), etc., then you're engaging in anti-competitive behavior. This is not good for consumers, or the country, and must be regulated.
The essential difference (Score:2)
There is a distinction that may at first seem subtle, but it's very real and very important.
Okay:
Making your product better.
Not okay:
Intentionally making your product worse, because doing so will create problems for your competitor.
Okay:
Trying to make more money.
Not okay:
Intentionally losing money, hurting your company, in a way designed to also hurt your competitor.
Trying to be the best is legal and good. Trying to be worse, in order to damage competition, is not good and not legal if you you already have
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have an unregulated capitalist system for that reason. What you describe can only happen in an unfettered market. We fetter it dumb ass.
Game It. Level Up. Difficulty Increased. (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be nice to see Gamification more enforced at a federal level.
More specifically -- difficulty increases with skill and success.
Providing a clear path to increase compliance and societal good, that can be planned for.
X-Small companies would have more incentives, less taxes, and other benefits to remaining small and local, with little regulation.
Small companies would add minimal regulation for employee welfare; and added taxes
Med companies would add full regularlation for employee welfare, and minimal regulation for societal welfare; and reduced benefits
Large companies would add full regulation for societal welfare, and stricter regulations on quality-of-life for their employees, and region; added taxes;
X-Large companies would be highly taxed; exempt from government support; and highly regulated.
As companies increase in size:
Employee Pay increases: (in terms of highest of dollar-minimum; % average of county; % average of state.
Employee Contributions decrease for insurance;
Company Provided 401k payments increase: min % match -> min % match + min $ contrib
Time off minimiums: 10days / year (1 day earned per 200hrs or portion worked) -> 20days -> 30days -> 40days -> 50days.
Increasing requirements for "healthy design" (access to sunlight, minimum workspace, etc)
For society:
Company or regional subsidized or provided public transport (cannot be made employee-only); increase funding for services supporting the neighborhood; and shuttles from central hubs to specific businesses.
Bonuses for providing non- or minimal-represented industries in 5mi, 10mi, 20mi, 50mi, 100mi; -- to encourage diverity in location, and competition.
Tax Paid or Credit Earned for neighborhood initialitives: Street Cleaning; Landscaping; Food Banks
Tax Paid or Credit Earned for city initiatives: Parks, Concerts, Relaxation Constructions (sauna/hot-tub/spa complexes); Subsidizing new construction or reducing payment to the public (Price increases must be regulated, and approved by independent auditor; or remain with x% of state or national average)
Tax paid or Credit Earned for regional initiatives: Transportation hubs; Rejuvination; SUpport for upgrading buildings to modern code;
Increasing Max Differential for "Highly Compensated Positions" Can not be more than x% of company average compensation across all employees AND contractors. 100% for small compaines (Cannot make more than average + (average * 100%)); to increase incentive for all the added taxes and obligations; xl companies may allow +100x average (50k average; 5,050k max for highly paid).
For Environmental:
Internalization of costs: Packaging costs for recycling/garbage: Increasing tax based on ease of recycling of packaging; Ownership of all packaging and packing supplies (see German Packaging Law), where consumers and retails purchase product; all packaging for display and shipping are returnable to place of purchase (store, return mail) for anything non paper/cardboard or glass. (Private industrty funded plastic collection and disposal will likely be created by companies affected)
Taxes paid and Credit Earned for adding and improving green-space within and around the local region. Increasing the amount of public tended open space.
Increasing requirements on Sustainability, with minimum requirements increasing. Power-consumption per week (see Japan); Recyclability,
Re: (Score:3)
I don't like Facebook but the FTC are being idiots here, you surely can't sue a company for mergers after you (gov't / SEC) explicitly allowed those mergers after no doubt hearing objections to those mergers for the exact reason they are now being sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Solid point. They never should have allowed those mergers. However, that's not the only point in the suit if you RTFA
Information changes, minds change (Score:2)
I don't like Facebook but the FTC are being idiots here, you surely can't sue a company for mergers after you (gov't / SEC) explicitly allowed those mergers after no doubt hearing objections to those mergers for the exact reason they are now being sued.
And having heard assurances from Facebook they will *not* act in an anticompetitive manner. Yet when they ultimately *do* of course the government reacts.
"Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recalled that John Maynard Keynes once was challenged for altering his position on some economic issue. “When my information changes,” he remembered that Keynes had said, “I change my mind. What do you do?”"
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
not really, unbridled capitalism is brutal and unsustainable. That being said there is a lot to be said for a 'mostly' free market. One thing we recognized in the 1800's was that if you do not put certain restrictions in place the markets don't stay free, which is bad for everybody except the first few people who consolidate control.
So we have some basic rules to the game.
They are called anti-trust laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nothings is perfect, and the United States certainly not, but this is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)