←back to thread

431 points c420 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
henryfjordan ◴[] No.43685057[source]
> "The FTC's lawsuit against Meta defies reality. The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others," Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement.

Everyone knew at the time that Facebook bought Instagram because it threatened Facebook's dominance, and hindsight shows that exactly that happened. There's a huge swath of people that dropped off FB and now use Insta, but Meta owns both. It was a great move but it was absolutely anti-competitive at the time.

replies(19): >>43685508 #>>43685515 #>>43685646 #>>43685767 #>>43685806 #>>43685820 #>>43686547 #>>43686628 #>>43686655 #>>43687439 #>>43687599 #>>43688044 #>>43688162 #>>43688335 #>>43688415 #>>43689802 #>>43689816 #>>43690767 #>>43703847 #
1. jmyeet ◴[] No.43688162[source]
So I have an alternative take on this. I don't agree with your basic facts but I have a different conclusion.

If a company, which had 13 employees at the time of acquisition and was ~2 years old, can be a legitimate threat to Facebook (which it was), then how strong is your monopoly, really?

For context, we've seen this play out multiple times in the last decade: with Snapchat to some degree but now, more importantly, with Tiktok.

Many consider Facebook a relic for old people. IG is rapidly meeting the same fate. It seems to be way more popular with millenials than Zoomers (anecdotally).

My point is that when the cost of user switching to a new platform is as simple as downloading a new app and creating a new login, then your "monopoly" lacks the traditional moat or barrier to entry that antitrust is specifically designed to fight.

Put another way: this just isn't as urgent as people are making it out to be and (IMHO) it's merely a shakedown by the current administration to get Meta to fall in line with censoring topics that the administration doesn't like.

replies(1): >>43689092 #
2. ◴[] No.43689092[source]