> Regulators correctly allowed these deals to move forward because they did not threaten competition.
FB at that time said they could impossibly integrate those platforms into FB. An important reason for the Eu to eventually allow the take over. Surprise, surprise, a few years later they announced the platforms are being merged into one.
> The FTC and states stood by for years while Facebook invested billions of dollars and millions of hours to make Instagram and WhatsApp into the apps that users enjoy today.
WhatsApp was very popular with users before acquisition. I'm pretty sure that's why FB bought it. Same with Instagram.
WhatsApp was popular, but iirc didn’t have video calls or group phone calls (and perhaps not even 1-1 calls). It is likely true that FB funded WhatsApp’s continuing relevance.
It is just as likely , though, that WhatsApp would develop these features regardless - at perhaps a slightly slower pace.
WhatsApp’s expenses were compatible with $1/user/year they were charging in some markets (and which they would likely be able to charge in most of all).
If FB didn’t fund it , someone else - perhaps the users - would have. But it was the growth (evidence for which was collected through Onavo) and implied threat that made FB buy them, not anything else.
> Both of these acquisitions were reviewed by relevant antitrust regulators at the time. The FTC conducted an in-depth “Second Request” of the Instagram transaction in 2012 before voting unanimously to clear it. The European Commission reviewed the WhatsApp transaction in 2014 and found no risk of harm to competition in any potential market.
Just because they were reviewed to be legal at the time does not mean they're legal now, also it does not mean they were right back then. I believe the FTC isn't subject to the rules against double jeopardy like the legal system.
> Now, many years later, with seemingly no regard for settled law or the consequences to innovation and investment, the agency is saying it got it wrong and wants a do-over.
Nice framing, but the FTC's rulings aren't "law", they're regulatory decisions, and they can be revisited any time they want.
In fact, it would be downright silly for that not to be the case, as it would suggest that the government cannot go back and revisit past decisions in order to intervene and address newly identified market failures that are a product of unanticipated changes in the market.
One of the issues I have with this is that no one seems to know the desired outcome. Facebook touch on that with their critism of the approval/reversal of the mergers. What is the desired outcome here? Is it just divesting from WhatsApp and Insta? That doesn't answer 99% of the criticisms of social media or big tech.
To me, this stinks of "something must be done and this is something".
Facebook’s growth has stalled and Instagram is overshadowing its parent, hence the efforts to integrate it so completely that it cannot be divested. As a separate company it would be a tremendous check on FB’s market power.
As for FB’s attempt to create an irreversible fait accompli, it’s easy enough to address: Instagram gets all the shared infrastructure and its transitive closure, and it’s Facebook’s task to replace it for itself, not the spun-off Instagram.
Sorry to be a dick but this is exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't actually answered my question, what IS the desired outcome here?
If we break up Insta and FB (and whatapp or the same for google), what changes? There is more competition maybe. But is that actually a good thing for the average citizen?
More competition means lower prices for ads since that's what is really being bought and sold here. But that does nothing for anyone not buying ads (99.9% of people). In fact, lower prices means more ads which worsens the experience for Web users.
Plus, with a psudo monopoly on ads, FB can and does pursue at least some social responsibility programs (banning certain ads for instance). Maybe they should do more (I think so but you might not?), but if you increase competition they will be forced to do less. So you'll see more fake news and clickbait bs. Again, that doesn't help the average citizen.
As margins fall, everyone will be forced to invest less in the actual platforms. This too seems like a worse deal for most users: sites that don't have as many functions and load slower and go down more and have more ads.
Given all these very foreseeable downsides, why would we want more competition in this market? Competition is NOT a good in and of itself. It's only good or bad based on what it produces. Cheaper flight prices are good! Flights so cheap the airplanes crash are bad. So we have the FAA to mandate standards.
Until we're ready to add something similar to social media, you need to be very careful calling for more competition blindly.
I'm not so sure it would die, though I wouldn't mind in the slightest if it did.
But then you have 2 more problems: Facebook 2.0 will like open shortly after, just as Facebook replaced MySpace. And you have random agencies from the US government deciding which platforms are permitted to operate with no oversight or guidance beyond whatever the next President Trump thinks favours him...
I've wondered if Tesla expansion could be further refined (expedited?) by utilizing
the existing supply chain of its "spent" battery modules powering its road worthy storage product (complete with cooling hardware) pre-Redwood-Materials post-mobile-energy-dense-lifetime as a dedicated local grid.
Classical Supercharger (pre-war-chest) insertion&incentive formula was inspired by vacant parking lot presence near hubs of established social economic activity and short distance access to conventional substations (input). Now that our Type Zero civilization is considering the dangers of a compacted human settlement sprawl (energized by the protein of the similarly compacted animal farm), perhaps it may become more convenient to view a remotely located Supercharger/solar/storage site as the first building block of the minimally invasive living space template of the future (McDonalds is one of the largest real estate holders, and also sells burgers).
The input then becomes a low cost large footprint solar array atop a common city center warehouse and/or surrounding vacancy of low tax land. The modular Powerpack can scale capacity within the ample space of the Town Warehouse Space (also available to contain additional communal assets) as local residency increases.
This becomes conceptual practice space for the inevitable Starborough.
I think you made an error. This thread is for the intelligent, able bodied, ambitious, high powered Justice Cohort whose billable hours are meant to be spent bickering about who controls existing "pipes" of communication.
"fiercely, chilling, unquestionably" are the key words of the article.
16 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 41.4 ms ] threadFB at that time said they could impossibly integrate those platforms into FB. An important reason for the Eu to eventually allow the take over. Surprise, surprise, a few years later they announced the platforms are being merged into one.
WhatsApp was very popular with users before acquisition. I'm pretty sure that's why FB bought it. Same with Instagram.
It is just as likely , though, that WhatsApp would develop these features regardless - at perhaps a slightly slower pace.
WhatsApp’s expenses were compatible with $1/user/year they were charging in some markets (and which they would likely be able to charge in most of all).
If FB didn’t fund it , someone else - perhaps the users - would have. But it was the growth (evidence for which was collected through Onavo) and implied threat that made FB buy them, not anything else.
Just because they were reviewed to be legal at the time does not mean they're legal now, also it does not mean they were right back then. I believe the FTC isn't subject to the rules against double jeopardy like the legal system.
Nice framing, but the FTC's rulings aren't "law", they're regulatory decisions, and they can be revisited any time they want.
In fact, it would be downright silly for that not to be the case, as it would suggest that the government cannot go back and revisit past decisions in order to intervene and address newly identified market failures that are a product of unanticipated changes in the market.
To me, this stinks of "something must be done and this is something".
As for FB’s attempt to create an irreversible fait accompli, it’s easy enough to address: Instagram gets all the shared infrastructure and its transitive closure, and it’s Facebook’s task to replace it for itself, not the spun-off Instagram.
If we break up Insta and FB (and whatapp or the same for google), what changes? There is more competition maybe. But is that actually a good thing for the average citizen?
More competition means lower prices for ads since that's what is really being bought and sold here. But that does nothing for anyone not buying ads (99.9% of people). In fact, lower prices means more ads which worsens the experience for Web users.
Plus, with a psudo monopoly on ads, FB can and does pursue at least some social responsibility programs (banning certain ads for instance). Maybe they should do more (I think so but you might not?), but if you increase competition they will be forced to do less. So you'll see more fake news and clickbait bs. Again, that doesn't help the average citizen.
As margins fall, everyone will be forced to invest less in the actual platforms. This too seems like a worse deal for most users: sites that don't have as many functions and load slower and go down more and have more ads.
Given all these very foreseeable downsides, why would we want more competition in this market? Competition is NOT a good in and of itself. It's only good or bad based on what it produces. Cheaper flight prices are good! Flights so cheap the airplanes crash are bad. So we have the FAA to mandate standards.
Until we're ready to add something similar to social media, you need to be very careful calling for more competition blindly.
But then you have 2 more problems: Facebook 2.0 will like open shortly after, just as Facebook replaced MySpace. And you have random agencies from the US government deciding which platforms are permitted to operate with no oversight or guidance beyond whatever the next President Trump thinks favours him...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-onavo-gives-social-me...
This will be a crucial piece of evidence in the antitrust case, as it will show intent to violate antitrust laws.
Classical Supercharger (pre-war-chest) insertion&incentive formula was inspired by vacant parking lot presence near hubs of established social economic activity and short distance access to conventional substations (input). Now that our Type Zero civilization is considering the dangers of a compacted human settlement sprawl (energized by the protein of the similarly compacted animal farm), perhaps it may become more convenient to view a remotely located Supercharger/solar/storage site as the first building block of the minimally invasive living space template of the future (McDonalds is one of the largest real estate holders, and also sells burgers).
The input then becomes a low cost large footprint solar array atop a common city center warehouse and/or surrounding vacancy of low tax land. The modular Powerpack can scale capacity within the ample space of the Town Warehouse Space (also available to contain additional communal assets) as local residency increases.
This becomes conceptual practice space for the inevitable Starborough.
"fiercely, chilling, unquestionably" are the key words of the article.