[ecb_penguin]

> Please for the love of god make it a legal requirement that messaging must be made available as a separate app

Please for the love of god do not make legal requirements about how to build an app and what features can be included.

> We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform.

lol, you have no legal right to how a chat dialog must be presented.

Why don't you try innovating instead of suing?

[alkonaut]

That would be the sensible idea in a free market. But that ship sailed LONG ago. Now there are apps and "markets" that are so important and dominating (Amazon, Facebook, ...) that the only alternatives are basically to split them, control them or regulate them in detail. The problem isn't lack of "innovation".

Anyone can make any social app work the way they want to. But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users.

[darkwater]

Case in point: the only other big "apps" that appeared, survived and are actually making a dent in the existing monopolies are from China, backed by a "hostile" government and impossible to buy for the incumbents.

[ecb_penguin]

> That would be the sensible idea in a free market.

Absolutely nothing stopping you from starting a social network

> But that ship sailed LONG ago.

I'm pretty sure there are hundreds? thousands? of startups ready to launch that all do some variant of FB.

Why are you on YC if you think free market tech is dead?

> But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users.

lol, what? We have different laws depending on how popular you are? What are the thresholds for when new laws apply? Is it strictly user count? Engagement time? Revenue?

Innovation may be dead in Europe but don't try to bring this nonsense elsewhere.

[array_key_first]

Facebook doesn't exist in a free market. It IS a market. And an unfree one ruled by a dictatorship that you can't vote on.

That's what platforms are. They're markets. Its not like making a couch or something.

That's why those other apps are literally worthless.

It doesn't matter if the other apps are super amazing and they walk your dog and suck your dick and make you live forever. Literally does not matter.

The app, itself, does not matter. Which is why Facebook is allowed to be as shit as humanly possible.

What matters is what the app proxies, which is a market. Those other apps will always fail, forever, because they can't compete with facebooks market because they're not even allowed into that market.

[ecb_penguin]

> Facebook doesn't exist in a free market. It IS a market.

It is a market that exists in the free market.

> And an unfree one ruled by a dictatorship that you can't vote on.

Ok, so don't use that market. You're not entitled to Facebook, or being able to dictate anything.

> That's what platforms are. They're markets. Its not like making a couch or something.

Bud, I am begging you to close your Facebook account and see it is exactly like a couch you don't have to buy.

> It doesn't matter if the other apps are super amazing and they walk your dog and suck your dick and make you live forever. Literally does not matter.

You heard it here. YC is dead. Close up shop. All these investors just wasting their money because you can't vote Zuck out.

> The app, itself, does not matter. Which is why Facebook is allowed to be as shit as humanly possible.

This is just nonsense. You're trying to sound smart by taking an extreme position. Nuance is smart.

[array_key_first]

> You heard it here. YC is dead. Close up shop. All these investors just wasting their money because you can't vote Zuck out.

Yes, this is actually true.

You want nuance? Here's the nuance.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is actually competing with facebook. They're not trying to.

So what is YC funding? What are these companies doing? They're attacking different markets and making different products. When was the last time you saw a startup make a general purpose social media platform? It doesn't happen. Nobody does it. Because they know they'll lose.

If you look at the hot new kids on the block, none of them are actually competing with facebook. TikTok? TikTok is not facebook, it's a completely different product. Twitter? They're incumbent too, but completely different product. Youtube? Disney Plus? Pintrest? Linkedin? Just think about it.

You could, TRIVIALLY, make a better facebook. I, right now, in the course of a few weeks, could make a better facebook. But I'm not. And you're not. And nobody is. And nobody is even trying to.

Search your feelings, and you will know it to be true.

[alkonaut]

> Why are you on YC if you think free market tech is dead?

I have been visiting this forum for 12 years. It took probably 5 years before I _heard_ about the "other" part of ycombinator - the startup thing. But I never really cared about that bit, it's just an online tech forum that happens to share domain with the startup incubator.

> lol, what? We have different laws depending on how popular you are?

Absolutely. I think that is pretty universal already. For example laws preventing monopolies (government approvals of mergers, for example).

[ecb_penguin]

> For example laws preventing monopolies (government approvals of mergers, for example).

Can you show me the federal code that includes number of customers?

Do you think monopoly rules are about size or behavior? Do you think a small mom and pop store couldn't act in monopolistic practices?

Do you think a small mom and pop store in a rural captured market couldn't price fix?

Hint: It's not size :)

[alkonaut]

> Can you show me the federal code that includes number of customers?

I never mentioned ”number of customers”. The relevant law surrounding monopolies is the Clayton antitrust act of 1914

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/18

What is and isn’t a monopoly is of course decided on a case by case basis - as it should. There is no law saying that 80% market share is necesssarily a monopoly or that 20% is so low it can’t be blocked.

> Do you think a small mom and pop store in a rural captured market couldn't price fix?

Not sure how it’s relevant but they can of course haves local monopoly - but afaik in the US such local monopolies aren’t subject to regulation.