(www.axios.com)

431 points c420 | 3 comments | 14 Apr 25 13:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.22s | source

Show context

paxys ◴[14 Apr 25 19:40 UTC] No.43685386[source]▶

I don't understand the FTC's strategy here. Their entire case hinges on the fact that the judge will accept that Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and MeWe (?) are direct competitors of Facebook in the "personal social networking" space while TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and all the rest aren't. Unsurprisingly that is what Meta's legal team is spending all of its efforts debating. I really can't see the judge allowing such a cherry-picked definition of what Facebook's market is.

replies(5): >>43685882 #>>43685979 #>>43686698 #>>43687240 #>>43688004 #

whatshisface ◴[14 Apr 25 20:31 UTC] No.43685979[source]▶

>>43685386 #

The definition of a trust isn't a business with no competitors. In fact, a business with no competitors is legal. Antitrust law limits "anti-competitive actions," which are possible even for commodity producers in an efficient market.

replies(2): >>43687242 #>>43688729 #

the_clarence ◴[14 Apr 25 23:03 UTC] No.43687242[source]▶

>>43685979 #

Exactly! So what is anti competitive here?

replies(3): >>43687418 #>>43687485 #>>43688611 #

ezfe ◴[15 Apr 25 03:01 UTC] No.43688611[source]▶

>>43687242 #

Buying a rising product to make sure you control it instead of needing to compete with it is not legal when you're the size of Facebook.

replies(1): >>43695344 #

1. the_clarence ◴[15 Apr 25 16:43 UTC] No.43695344[source]▶

>>43688611 #

Isnt this inviting to competition? You can make a big exit by competing and getting acquired