> According to the FCO, Facebook had 32 million monthly active users in Germany at the end of last year, amounting to a market share of more than 80 percent.
I am not sure I understand: that’s Facebook penetration Facebook accounts/adult digital population), not their market share - which would be Facebook accounts/(sum of accounts of all social media, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, ...Spotify)
> The regulator argues this dominance gives it jurisdiction to oversee the company’s data collection practices.
...and why only the data collection practices? Why would the other parts of the T&C of Facebook be not subject to it? Why should consumers not be forced to accept just the data collection practices of the T&C? Shouldn’t the German antitrust then, logically, prevent Facebook from enforcing their entire T&C? So, large companies now cannot have T&C enforced even when they do not cause economic damage to the market? Is there an economic gain for a person to join Facebook? My friend does not have a Facebook account, I don't think she is poorer because of it. ...because if there is no economic harm, I don’t see why the antitrust office would have jurisdiction.
Maybe the gain/harm is not economic, maybe the gain from a Facebook account is not economic, it’s “social”. Well isn’t then the “social” gain greater when Facebook offers a unified experience (across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsUp)? How does the antitrust office action make any sense?
What am I missing?
I agree that they were probably mistaken in 'market share' when in reality it should have been market penetration. But I think they idea was to say that Facebook has data or can get data relating to 80 percent of the population, so they believe that's a good enough reason to make sure Facebook doesn't use that opportunity do to harm.
Because once they have such a high penetration rate, people would be very hesitant and afraid to leave the service if the T&C are too overreaching.
Your friend might not be poorer for it, but the chances of you (assuming that you do have an account) of rejecting a new addition to the existing Facebook T&C (and as a result quitting from Facebook) is very slim, especially since there isn't a resembling service that you might transfer to (at least not a strong service).
"Market share" includes people who don't have a Facebook account but are tracked anyway, wherever Facebook has a Like button, login button or whatever else they place onto sites as a third party.
Doesn't it make sense to look at only the specific bits that are causing harm, rather than stepping in to completely rewrite a contract. Governments on both sides of the Atlantic rule certain contract terms illegal (eg no competes), the presence of those terms doesn't invalidate the whole contract generally though.
> Authorities haven’t done a good job of articulating why privacy is an antitrust issue. Here, the German regulator makes it clear. ‘The FCO’s theory is that Facebook’s dominance is what allows it to impose on users contractual terms that require them to allow Facebook to track them all over,’ Khan says. ‘When there is a lack of competition, users accepting terms of service are often not truly consenting. The consent is a fiction.‘
Huh, a legal theory linking Facebook’s market position to consumer harm.
They clearly are consenting though. Facebook is not a necessity so they could easily just not use Facebook if they don't like the terms. Twitter, Snapchat, email, text messaging, and many more all still work as ways to communicate with your friends/family.
There isn't any question at all that Facebook is forced upon you. Many things are only available on Facebook - even some official government stuff and lots of businesses use it for things workers cannot do without (working hours shared on Facebook etc.). Clearly it should not be allowed to harvest data without consent from people forced to use its platform.
That Facebook even mentions YouTube as a direct competitor is laughable and shows they have no case for appeal. They might as well had said Netflix or the library!
Even if FB stops tracking Germans so much (and hopefully all the other EU countries) they'll still be able to sell ads. FB is where people go and where ads are more likely to be seen.
FB might discover that it makes the same amount of money at a lower cost.
14 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] threadI am not sure I understand: that’s Facebook penetration Facebook accounts/adult digital population), not their market share - which would be Facebook accounts/(sum of accounts of all social media, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, ...Spotify)
> The regulator argues this dominance gives it jurisdiction to oversee the company’s data collection practices.
...and why only the data collection practices? Why would the other parts of the T&C of Facebook be not subject to it? Why should consumers not be forced to accept just the data collection practices of the T&C? Shouldn’t the German antitrust then, logically, prevent Facebook from enforcing their entire T&C? So, large companies now cannot have T&C enforced even when they do not cause economic damage to the market? Is there an economic gain for a person to join Facebook? My friend does not have a Facebook account, I don't think she is poorer because of it. ...because if there is no economic harm, I don’t see why the antitrust office would have jurisdiction. Maybe the gain/harm is not economic, maybe the gain from a Facebook account is not economic, it’s “social”. Well isn’t then the “social” gain greater when Facebook offers a unified experience (across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsUp)? How does the antitrust office action make any sense? What am I missing?
Because once they have such a high penetration rate, people would be very hesitant and afraid to leave the service if the T&C are too overreaching.
Your friend might not be poorer for it, but the chances of you (assuming that you do have an account) of rejecting a new addition to the existing Facebook T&C (and as a result quitting from Facebook) is very slim, especially since there isn't a resembling service that you might transfer to (at least not a strong service).
The market does not grow just because I create a Spotify account if I already have a Facebook account.
Doesn't it make sense to look at only the specific bits that are causing harm, rather than stepping in to completely rewrite a contract. Governments on both sides of the Atlantic rule certain contract terms illegal (eg no competes), the presence of those terms doesn't invalidate the whole contract generally though.
Huh, a legal theory linking Facebook’s market position to consumer harm.
That Facebook even mentions YouTube as a direct competitor is laughable and shows they have no case for appeal. They might as well had said Netflix or the library!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19104098
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19105272
FB might discover that it makes the same amount of money at a lower cost.