https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/09/facebook-lawsuit-antitrust-whatsapp-instagram-ftc
QuoteThe US government and a coalition of 48 states and districts have filed lawsuits against Facebook in a major antitrust offensive on Big Tech.
One lawsuit brings together nearly every state in the US, a coalition led by New York's attorney general, Letitia James. "For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users," said James in a statement.
"Today, we are taking action to stand up for the millions of consumers and many small businesses that have been harmed by Facebook's illegal behavior. Instead of competing on the merits, Facebook used its power to suppress competition so it could take advantage of users and make billions by converting personal data into a cash cow."
The other lawsuit was brought by the the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC said in a statement that it would seek an injunction that "could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp".
At the heart of both antitrust actions is Facebook's dominance of the social media market, and whether the social media giant gobbled up potential competitors that could have eaten into its market share. In particular, investigators have spent months looking into Facebook's acquisition of two big apps: a $1bn deal to buy the photo-sharing app Instagram in 2012, and the $19bn purchase of the global messaging service WhatsApp in 2014. Together, the buys brought the top four social media companies worldwide under Facebook's control.
At the time of its acquisition, Instagram had 30 million users, and, even though it was growing rapidly, it wasn't yet making money. WhatsApp boasted more than 450 million monthly active users when it was acquired. "WhatsApp is on a path to connect 1 billion people," Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, said in a statement at the time.
The FTC cleared Facebook for the acquisitions when they occurred, and the company is hoping to leverage those approvals in mounting a defense. Facebook executives have also argued their company has helped the apps grow.
But Facebook has come under greater scrutiny since the deals were done, and the FTC launched a new investigation into the potential antitrust violations in 2019.
It's a shakedown. Instagram and Whatsapp were not competitors to Facebook, unless you define social media so broadly it loses any meaning. Is email social media? Texting, voice calls, snail mail?
That doesn't appear to be facebook's position. Also, how is Instagram not social media? :unsure:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/states-ftc-suing-facebook-for-alleged-antitrust-abuses-443957
Quote...
Both complaints rely heavily on communications among Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives, with the states referring to him by name 64 times and the FTC about 40. The FTC, in particular, cites a 2008 Zuckerberg e-mail as the company's overarching philosophy: "it is better to buy than compete."
The FTC looked into Facebook's $1 billion Instagram purchase and $19 billion WhatsApp deal at the time but didn't oppose the deals. However, recently disclosed internal communications show that Zuckerberg and other senior Facebook executives had pushed the details to neutralize a competitive threat to the social network, House Judiciary Committee investigators reported in October.
The messages included e-mails in which Zuckerberg described the Instagram purchase as "insurance" to protect Facebook's main product, saying the company "can likely always just buy any competitive startups."
In internal conversations about the WhatsApp deal, Facebook executives said the merger was needed to "shore up our position" and keep the smaller company from gaining more traction than Facebook Messenger.
"I hate the word 'land grab' but I think that is the best convincing argument," the report quoted a Facebook executive as saying in support of the WhatsApp deal.
...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2020, 04:56:37 PM
It's a shakedown. Instagram and Whatsapp were not competitors to Facebook, unless you define social media so broadly it loses any meaning. Is email social media? Texting, voice calls, snail mail?
That is a very tricky position for Facebook to take and legally could be counterproductive. A defendant in an AT case usually wants to broaden the scope of the relevant market as much as possible to make it look more competitive. On your narrower view, Facebook is an existing, entrenched monopoly and thus would be legally subject to the stricter rules of conduct that apply to existing monopolies. In that case, the plaintiffs wouldn't necessarily have to prove that Instagram and Whatsapp were direct competitors, only that they had the potential to grow into competitors and Facebook acquired them with the intent to snuff out that potential.
QuoteThe FTC cleared Facebook for the acquisitions when they occurred
Are they admitting wrongdoing?
The real moral of the story for the millionth time is to be a lot more careful what you say in email.
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2020, 05:09:40 PM
QuoteThe FTC cleared Facebook for the acquisitions when they occurred
Are they admitting wrongdoing?
Cleared as in the FTC didn't attempt to block the deals.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2020, 05:09:40 PM
QuoteThe FTC cleared Facebook for the acquisitions when they occurred
Are they admitting wrongdoing?
Cleared as in the FTC didn't attempt to block the deals.
Yes?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:08:04 PM
That is a very tricky position for Facebook to take and legally could be counterproductive. A defendant in an AT case usually wants to broaden the scope of the relevant market as much as possible to make it look more competitive. On your narrower view, Facebook is an existing, entrenched monopoly and thus would be legally subject to the stricter rules of conduct that apply to existing monopolies. In that case, the plaintiffs wouldn't necessarily have to prove that Instagram and Whatsapp were direct competitors, only that they had the potential to grow into competitors and Facebook acquired them with the intent to snuff out that potential.
If Instagram and Whatsapp had the potential to grow into competitors of Facebook, anything you do on on your phone or computer has the potential to grow into a competitor of Facebook, and Facebook is not so "entrenched."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:10:55 PM
The real moral of the story for the millionth time is to be a lot more careful what you say in email.
I checked my email outbox and have 23,773 emails I've sent dating back to mid 2015. The number should probably be a lot higher but I get distracted with stuff like languish. The reality is that there is such a large volume of email activity going through large companies that you can use emails to prove almost anything you want.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2020, 05:34:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:10:55 PM
The real moral of the story for the millionth time is to be a lot more careful what you say in email.
I checked my email outbox and have 23,773 emails I've sent dating back to mid 2015. The number should probably be a lot higher but I get distracted with stuff like languish. The reality is that there is such a large volume of email activity going through large companies that you can use emails to prove almost anything you want.
I looked it up - I have 57,000 emails going back to 2011. -_-
Holy shit.
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2020, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2020, 05:34:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:10:55 PM
The real moral of the story for the millionth time is to be a lot more careful what you say in email.
I checked my email outbox and have 23,773 emails I've sent dating back to mid 2015. The number should probably be a lot higher but I get distracted with stuff like languish. The reality is that there is such a large volume of email activity going through large companies that you can use emails to prove almost anything you want.
I looked it up - I have 57,000 emails going back to 2011. -_-
39.324 dating back to 2001; I need to clear that out. :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2020, 05:34:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:10:55 PM
The real moral of the story for the millionth time is to be a lot more careful what you say in email.
I checked my email outbox and have 23,773 emails I've sent dating back to mid 2015. The number should probably be a lot higher but I get distracted with stuff like languish. The reality is that there is such a large volume of email activity going through large companies that you can use emails to prove almost anything you want.
Yeah, I always wonder to what extent these e-mails are cherrypicked to fit the narrative. If you send enough e-mails, there will always be some that won't sound good when taken out of context (which at the time may have been established outside of e-mails).
Is everyone supposed to write like Tony Soprano was talking, just to preemptively avoid such a situation? You may have an easier time during a lawsuit, but you'll have a harder time doing actual business efficiently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2020, 04:56:37 PM
It's a shakedown. Instagram and Whatsapp were not competitors to Facebook, unless you define social media so broadly it loses any meaning. Is email social media? Texting, voice calls, snail mail?
Instagram was exactly like FB with a limit of only having picture posts.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2020, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2020, 04:56:37 PM
It's a shakedown. Instagram and Whatsapp were not competitors to Facebook, unless you define social media so broadly it loses any meaning. Is email social media? Texting, voice calls, snail mail?
Instagram was exactly like FB with a limit of only having picture posts.
And WhatsApp is just like Facebook Messenger.
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
No, I'd suggest reading articles about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2020, 04:56:37 PM
It's a shakedown. Instagram and Whatsapp were not competitors to Facebook, unless you define social media so broadly it loses any meaning. Is email social media? Texting, voice calls, snail mail?
I agree with the other comments - Instagram and WhatsApp are clearly social media and I think in both cases Facebook had an analagous service (that was doing less well).
But part of it is surely what's the angle you look at competitors from? Because from a consumer perspective they may offer different services, from the other end (the bit that makes money) where they're targeting advertising they are very similar. In fact there's no difference in output for online advertising is, I think, all managed through Facebook who sort of merge the various data streams they've got about people through the different social media channels they operate.
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2020, 03:26:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
No, I'd suggest reading articles about it.
I'm not that interested. :(
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Intent is a requirement for a lot of crimes. If the powers that be concluded it was okay that you did something with one understanding of your intent, and then it comes to light that your intent was quite different so they decide to prosecute, that doesn't make the action a thoughtcrime.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2020, 05:34:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2020, 05:10:55 PM
The real moral of the story for the millionth time is to be a lot more careful what you say in email.
I checked my email outbox and have 23,773 emails I've sent dating back to mid 2015. The number should probably be a lot higher but I get distracted with stuff like languish. The reality is that there is such a large volume of email activity going through large companies that you can use emails to prove almost anything you want.
No that is not true. There are emails, then there are bad emails, and then there are really bad emails. 25K in category 1 doesn't make a case but even one in category 3 can cost billions or get someone convicted
It's important to keep in mind that a plaintiff, including (especially?) a government plaintiff, doesn't need to have a slam dunk winner of a case at trial to get a successful outcome. Most rational defendants don't want to go to trial. Trials are very expensive and unpredictable especially where civil juries are involved. If a case is factually and legally strong enough to overcome motions for early disposition, there is usually a decent opportunity to get a negotiated settlement.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Intent is a requirement for a lot of crimes. If the powers that be concluded it was okay that you did something with one understanding of your intent, and then it comes to light that your intent was quite different so they decide to prosecute, that doesn't make the action a thoughtcrime.
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
For a short US law analysis from an enforcement perspective see: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1522327/hoffman_-_gcr_live_san_francisco_2019_speech_5-22-19.pdf - particularly starting around page 5.
Some quotes
QuoteMuch has been said about the possibility that large tech firms are squelching competition by
systematically acquiring potential competitors. And commentators have at times asserted that
the FTC is oblivious to this kind of anticompetitive acquisition. But let me note a couple of
caveats. First, I am not aware of good economic evidence that there is a unique and widespread
"nascent" or "start-up" acquisition issue in the tech industry
QuoteThe second initial caveat is—as I've repeatedly said—there is nothing wrong, from an
antitrust perspective, with the theory that the acquisition by an incumbent firm of a nascent rival
could be anticompetitive and violate the antitrust laws. There is no safe harbor for eliminating
future competitors. Had Microsoft bought Netscape rather than trying to put it out of business,
Microsoft would likely have—and should have—faced similar antitrust scrutiny and a similar
result.
QuoteSection 2 imposes a somewhat relaxed test for the causal relationship between the exclusionary conduct
and the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power. Some kind of relationship between the
challenged conduct and the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power is clearly needed.
But, on the other hand, it's also clear that a plaintiff does not need to show that, on the balance of
probabilities, in the hypothetical world that would have existed without the challenged conduct,
the defendant would not have acquired or maintained the monopoly power that it in fact now
enjoys. . .
There are two really important things to note about this test. First of all, it doesn't turn on
the actual effects in the specific case at issue. It's a matter of general tendency: the kind of
effects that can broadly be expected from conduct of this kind across the great run of cases.
Second, even through this lens of generalization, a plaintiff need not show but-for causation of
the monopoly. What matters is that conduct is reasonably capable (in general) of making a
significant contribution to monopoly: that is, that it would tend to make the acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly power more likely, or more durable, or more substantial, by some
meaningful amount. That is enough.
"Section 2" is a reference to the part of the Sherman Antitrust Act that addressed monopolization.
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Intent is a requirement for a lot of crimes. If the powers that be concluded it was okay that you did something with one understanding of your intent, and then it comes to light that your intent was quite different so they decide to prosecute, that doesn't make the action a thoughtcrime.
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
If the law punishes actions regardless of motive (i.e. " thoughts behind actions") you end up with a lot of bad results, like treating accidentally lethal self-defense the same as the worst murder. The Chinese tried the kinds of Legalism you propose, and it didn't work well.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2020, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Intent is a requirement for a lot of crimes. If the powers that be concluded it was okay that you did something with one understanding of your intent, and then it comes to light that your intent was quite different so they decide to prosecute, that doesn't make the action a thoughtcrime.
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
If the law punishes actions regardless of motive (i.e. " thoughts behind actions") you end up with a lot of bad results, like treating accidentally lethal self-defense the same as the worst murder.
No, and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion.
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:18:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2020, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Intent is a requirement for a lot of crimes. If the powers that be concluded it was okay that you did something with one understanding of your intent, and then it comes to light that your intent was quite different so they decide to prosecute, that doesn't make the action a thoughtcrime.
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
If the law punishes actions regardless of motive (i.e. " thoughts behind actions") you end up with a lot of bad results, like treating accidentally lethal self-defense the same as the worst murder.
No, and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion.
The difference between self-defense and murder is motive. Motive = "thoughts behind actions"
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2020, 04:25:54 PM
The difference between self-defense and murder is motive. Motive = "thoughts behind actions"
Sorry I must disagree.
The difference between self-defence and murder is intent. Intent is the "what" in what you are trying to do. In order to be murder you have to be trying to kill someone.
Motive is the "why". Are you trying to kill someone because you don't like them? Because they owe yo money? They slept with your partner? That's what motive is.
It's worth noting that as a prosecutor I never have to prove motive, but I always have to prove intent.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2020, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:18:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2020, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 03:12:43 AM
Do I understand the complaints correctly that buying Instagram and WhatsApp was fine (the FTC didn't have a problem with it), but writing some emails made it bad? Seems a bit like thoughtcrime.
Intent is a requirement for a lot of crimes. If the powers that be concluded it was okay that you did something with one understanding of your intent, and then it comes to light that your intent was quite different so they decide to prosecute, that doesn't make the action a thoughtcrime.
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
If the law punishes actions regardless of motive (i.e. " thoughts behind actions") you end up with a lot of bad results, like treating accidentally lethal self-defense the same as the worst murder.
No, and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion.
The difference between self-defense and murder is motive. Motive = "thoughts behind actions"
Sorry, I simply don't see it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
How about the action of not hiring someone you interviewed, versus the action of not hiring someone you interviewed because they were black (helpfully documented in an e-mail). Would you find the different treatment of the two same actions by law to be justified in that case?
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2020, 05:01:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 10, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
I think it's beyond doubt that Facebook intended to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. So intent has been established. Now was buying those something bad that should be punished? Yes if FB management thought they were buying up competition, no otherwise. I think sound law punishes actions, not thoughts behind actions. NB this is something I've seen in Swedish law and it has always struck me as unsound.
How about the action of not hiring someone you interviewed, versus the action of not hiring someone you interviewed because they were black (helpfully documented in an e-mail). Would you find the different treatment of the two same actions by law to be justified in that case?
That's a more interesting scenario. Nice. Do we know a credible reason why the non-racist employer didn't hire them?