Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by VortexDream 1656 days ago
For the love of god, having a monopoly is not required to be guilty of anti-competitive behavior. Every time the topic comes up somebody says "but FB/whoever doesn't own the entire market so everything is fine", as if it absolves FB from acting like complete and utter pieces of shit socially and in business. News flash, it doesn't fucking matter. They don't need a de facto monopoly to have an adverse effect on competition or their consumers/users.
2 comments
ljm 1656 days ago
Before: FB doesn't own the market, so this acquisition is all good.

After: FB now owns the market; how did we let them become a monopoly!?

link
vineyardmike 1655 days ago
(The review looks at the affect of the acquisition on market not just if they own the market already)

Before: FB doesn't own the market.

During review: FB would (/not) own the market with this acquisition. So we should deny (/approve) the acquisition.

After: Look the outcome we expected!

Much later: wow things change over time!

link
vineyardmike 1655 days ago
> For the love of god, having a monopoly is not required to be guilty of anti-competitive behavior.

The original comment said monopoly, not anti competitive behavior. They are different, you're right.

> They don't need a de facto monopoly to have an adverse effect on competition or their consumers/users.

True. That said, i'd argue facebook actually has a positive affect on competition in their space. They're regularly rolling out new features and making changes due to competitive forces, meaning others compete on better experience rather than just different.

Eg. FB copied snapchat stories... and snapchat had nothing to stay relevent. FB copied tiktok format and TT is stronger than ever, since TT's advantage wasn't the format but the algorithm.

link