←back to thread

431 points c420 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
paxys ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.43685979[source]
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 ◴[] No.43687242[source]
Exactly! So what is anti competitive here?
replies(3): >>43687418 #>>43687485 #>>43688611 #
karaterobot ◴[] No.43687418[source]
The government has alleged that Meta's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram was done to reduce competition. Nothing has been established as anti-competitive or not yet, that's why it's in court. Evidence from both sides will be presented. I'm not sure how else to answer that question.
replies(1): >>43689414 #
tyre ◴[] No.43689414[source]
Zuckerberg in writing said that instagram was purchased to prevent them from competing.

Many things have been established.

replies(2): >>43689626 #>>43713382 #
1. the_clarence ◴[] No.43713382[source]
Its not the same as forcing them to shut down or say yes. They wanted one less competitor yes, as every company does, but they didn't prevent the company from growing and existing.