The States V. Facebook
December 9, 2020 12:25 PM Subscribe
Today, a coalition of 48 states lead by NYS AG Letitia James have filed a lawsuit against Facebook, asserting the company has violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. (SLAssociated Press)
The plaintiffs are claiming that Facebook engages in the practice of "buying and burying", actively purchasing potential competitors in order to kill them to protect their own position. As relief, the states are seeking divestiture of purchased entities such as Instagram and Whatsapp, as well as being legally barred from modifying access to their APIs to prevent competition, among other things.
The plaintiffs are claiming that Facebook engages in the practice of "buying and burying", actively purchasing potential competitors in order to kill them to protect their own position. As relief, the states are seeking divestiture of purchased entities such as Instagram and Whatsapp, as well as being legally barred from modifying access to their APIs to prevent competition, among other things.
The FTC itself also likely to file shortly (Politico).
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:32 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:32 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Facebook is a criminal organization. Burn that shit house down.
posted by hoodrich at 12:33 PM on December 9, 2020 [46 favorites]
posted by hoodrich at 12:33 PM on December 9, 2020 [46 favorites]
Personally I want the whole thing plowed under salted earth but even if the A's G get their way, until Google and Amazon are made to suffer similar indignities we're going to be reasonably fucked as far as competition in the technical space goes.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:34 PM on December 9, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:34 PM on December 9, 2020 [17 favorites]
This is going to be awkward since the FTC already approved those acquisitions and afaik, there haven't been any regulatory changes since then.
posted by GuyZero at 12:36 PM on December 9, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 12:36 PM on December 9, 2020 [15 favorites]
This is going to be bad for Facebook, so I approve.
posted by suetanvil at 12:45 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by suetanvil at 12:45 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's tough for states to go it alone against this company. Facebook still violates Washington State political advertising laws, selling ad space without showing viewers where those ads really come from. If we enforced laws against criminal organizations, we would have raided and confiscated their Seattle office, by now.
Hopefully this turns out better than US v. Microsoft Corp. It kind of feels like going after Capone for tax evasion, when the larger issue seems to be Section 230. If there isn't a come-to-Jesus moment about that, Google, Twitter, and whatever else replaces or augments these companies tomorrow will still be protected when they sell space on their platforms to dictators, dictator-wannabes, and the minions running their disinformation campaigns.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:52 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
Hopefully this turns out better than US v. Microsoft Corp. It kind of feels like going after Capone for tax evasion, when the larger issue seems to be Section 230. If there isn't a come-to-Jesus moment about that, Google, Twitter, and whatever else replaces or augments these companies tomorrow will still be protected when they sell space on their platforms to dictators, dictator-wannabes, and the minions running their disinformation campaigns.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:52 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure if an anti-trust suit would help solve what I think of as the most crucial problems with the tech giants-- namely, distribution/weaponization of false information and surveillance capitalism.
posted by gwint at 12:54 PM on December 9, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by gwint at 12:54 PM on December 9, 2020 [15 favorites]
This is going to be awkward since the FTC already approved those acquisitions and afaik, there haven't been any regulatory changes since then.
I don't know about regulatory changes either, but FB hasn't exactly lived up to its commitment to keep the services separate (eg. merging IG and FB's messaging services). I imagine that could be playing into the FTC's beef.
I'm not sure if an anti-trust suit would help solve what I think of as the most crucial problems with the tech giants-- namely, distribution/weaponization of false information and surveillance capitalism.
Well hey, harder to surveil and spread lies when you have to do it across multiple competing platforms.
posted by saturday_morning at 1:02 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
I don't know about regulatory changes either, but FB hasn't exactly lived up to its commitment to keep the services separate (eg. merging IG and FB's messaging services). I imagine that could be playing into the FTC's beef.
I'm not sure if an anti-trust suit would help solve what I think of as the most crucial problems with the tech giants-- namely, distribution/weaponization of false information and surveillance capitalism.
Well hey, harder to surveil and spread lies when you have to do it across multiple competing platforms.
posted by saturday_morning at 1:02 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
It probably doesn't fix the bigger problems cited here, but this is still worth doing.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:03 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:03 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
The list of Facebook acquisitions is pretty long, and they have become way too dominant in many ways, and I'm glad the Government is taking this case. On the flip side I have a horrible mental image of Zuckerburg livestreaming himself splitting into identical clones to run Facebook, Instagram, Oculus, WhatsApp, WorkPlace etc. as some sort of hivemind collective. So there is that.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
It is a very small thing in the big picture, but Instagram will likely be much improved without Facebook being in control. It feels like everything's that changed about Instagram since Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger left has only made it worse and I have been worried, because I like Instagram, and I really would like to continue liking it.
posted by spindle at 1:07 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by spindle at 1:07 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
Somewhat related from today - and adding to what I'm sure is a busy day down in virtual-Menlo Park. Apple fires warning shot at Facebook and Google on privacy, pledges fight against 'data-industrial complex'.
Speaking at the European Data Protection and Privacy Conference on Tuesday, Apple's senior VP of software Craig Federighi made a number of pointed comments about how “some tech companies” would prefer it if Apple’s new App Tracking Transparency (ATT) feature was “never implemented at all.”posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:18 PM on December 9, 2020 [7 favorites]
He made it clear that despite Apple delaying the release of new privacy features in its mobile operating system – a decision made shortly after Facebook publicly attacked the idea – it will now roll out in early 2021 and “we’ll begin requiring all apps that want to do that to obtain their users’ explicit permission, and developers who fail to meet that standard can have their apps taken down from the App Store.”
...
But, in yet another dig at Facebook, he noted that “when invasive tracking is your business model, you tend not to welcome transparency and customer choice.” Facebook has been flexing its muscles in recent months by claiming publicly and to advertisers that Apple’s new features could reduce revenue by as much as 50 per cent.
Like.
posted by chavenet at 1:28 PM on December 9, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 1:28 PM on December 9, 2020 [22 favorites]
developers who fail to meet that standard can have their apps taken down from the App Store
I'm not this is a huge blow against tech monopoly power, kinda the opposite really.
I'm mean, there's no rule saying people can't be hypocrites, but Apple absolutely, positively runs a bigger monopoly than FB does.
posted by GuyZero at 1:45 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
I'm not this is a huge blow against tech monopoly power, kinda the opposite really.
I'm mean, there's no rule saying people can't be hypocrites, but Apple absolutely, positively runs a bigger monopoly than FB does.
posted by GuyZero at 1:45 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
For anyone curious which states didn’t join the suit: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, & South Dakota.
The 48 referenced in the article include 46 states plus DC and Guam.
posted by theory at 1:46 PM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
The 48 referenced in the article include 46 states plus DC and Guam.
posted by theory at 1:46 PM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
Facebook’s stock price dropped 1.93% today.
Apple, which was not sued by nearly every attorney general in America, saw a stock price drop of 2.09% today.
Just, in case you are wondering how much the market seems to be afraid of antitrust enforcement.
posted by gauche at 1:57 PM on December 9, 2020 [18 favorites]
Apple, which was not sued by nearly every attorney general in America, saw a stock price drop of 2.09% today.
Just, in case you are wondering how much the market seems to be afraid of antitrust enforcement.
posted by gauche at 1:57 PM on December 9, 2020 [18 favorites]
Burn MF'ing Facebook to the ground and please do the same to Google.
posted by photoslob at 2:15 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by photoslob at 2:15 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
I would expect any market moves ot be similar for FB/Apple/Amazon/Alphabet/etc. While Apple wasn't sued today, there are two main possibilities: the government is serious about antitrust this time, in which case Apple is also in serious trouble, or nothing will happen and everyone is fine. Hard to imagine a scenario where only FB gets severe penalties.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:21 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 2:21 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
I dunno, none of these charges really seem to address the reasons why Facebook is evil. So they're forced to spin off Instagram in five years -- so what? Still gonna be chock full of red-pill buffoons and MAGAmorons spouting absurdities, poisoning the minds of the whole planet.
...kinda seems like the real point is to have something to wave around and say "hey, hey! See, we're Doing Stuff! Please keep your eyes to the front, do not look behind the curtain!" The Google case, specifically, seems like it's been set up to fail on purpose.
posted by aramaic at 2:21 PM on December 9, 2020
...kinda seems like the real point is to have something to wave around and say "hey, hey! See, we're Doing Stuff! Please keep your eyes to the front, do not look behind the curtain!" The Google case, specifically, seems like it's been set up to fail on purpose.
posted by aramaic at 2:21 PM on December 9, 2020
I don't think you can lay what has happened to education in America over the last 50 years entirely at the feet of Facebook.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
Do Twitter next.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Just, in case you are wondering how much the market seems to be afraid of antitrust enforcement.
Hope they do Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple next.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 2:25 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Hope they do Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple next.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 2:25 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
I dunno, none of these charges really seem to address the reasons why Facebook is evil.
Yep. This is a very specific action and the motivations for bringing it up now are unclear. It has nothing to do on its face with FB's disinformation issues.
posted by GuyZero at 2:30 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yep. This is a very specific action and the motivations for bringing it up now are unclear. It has nothing to do on its face with FB's disinformation issues.
posted by GuyZero at 2:30 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
I dunno, none of these charges really seem to address the reasons why Facebook is evil. So they're forced to spin off Instagram in five years -- so what?
Eliminate the Section 230 exemption that prevents them from being sued for fraud and libel. They can operate under the same rules as the New York Times or CNN. Make Facebook responsible for pushing their lucrative conspiracy theories.
posted by JackFlash at 2:58 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Eliminate the Section 230 exemption that prevents them from being sued for fraud and libel. They can operate under the same rules as the New York Times or CNN. Make Facebook responsible for pushing their lucrative conspiracy theories.
posted by JackFlash at 2:58 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Eliminate the Section 230 exemption that prevents them from being sued for fraud and libel. They can operate under the same rules as the New York Times or CNN.
OK sure, but this is not that.
posted by GuyZero at 3:02 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
OK sure, but this is not that.
posted by GuyZero at 3:02 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Eliminate the Section 230 exemption
This would likely have the side effect of killing sites like, say, metafilter.com. It's a tough issue.
posted by gwint at 3:12 PM on December 9, 2020 [22 favorites]
This would likely have the side effect of killing sites like, say, metafilter.com. It's a tough issue.
posted by gwint at 3:12 PM on December 9, 2020 [22 favorites]
Click like and follow and next let's prioritize Amazon.
posted by aspersioncast at 3:18 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by aspersioncast at 3:18 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ken White (Popehat) - Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen.
Here Are Some Resources On What It Really Means, If You Care
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 3:21 PM on December 9, 2020 [13 favorites]
Here Are Some Resources On What It Really Means, If You Care
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 3:21 PM on December 9, 2020 [13 favorites]
This would likely have the side effect of killing sites like, say, metafilter.com.
It's not as tough or complicated as all that, probably, since nytimes.com etc. are still running fine.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:23 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's not as tough or complicated as all that, probably, since nytimes.com etc. are still running fine.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:23 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
could someone please explain how Apple is a monopoly? I get that people don't like the tight control and exclusivity of the App store. But does that mean that Playstation, XBox, and Switch are monopolies too? Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in the smart phone market or the desktop computer market or any of their other markets.
posted by sineater at 3:31 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by sineater at 3:31 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
It's not as tough or complicated as all that, probably, since nytimes.com etc. are still running fine.
I'm trying to be gentle here, but: This is a ridiculous comparison that suggests you really, really need to get a better grasp on the issues around Section 230 before you go talking about it. Please read the link in the comment by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug immediately above yours.
Specifically: nytimes.com does not let you publish whatever you want as an article on their website; if an article on nytimes.com is libelous, the New York Times is responsible, and can be sued for libel. (Comments on articles on newsites enjoy the same Section 230 protection as Metafilter does, and would also go the way of the dodo in the absence of Section 230.) Meanwhile, metafilter.com does let users post (more-or-less) whatever they want on their website. Mods moderate but do not generally fact-check user comments and posts (and absolutely do not have the resources to do so). If metafilter could be sued for libel based on comments metafilter users posted, this site would absolutely not be financially able to continue to exist - it would either need to invest a ton of money in fact-checkers, or insurance against libel claims, or more likely both, and it definitely can't afford either.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:37 PM on December 9, 2020 [24 favorites]
I'm trying to be gentle here, but: This is a ridiculous comparison that suggests you really, really need to get a better grasp on the issues around Section 230 before you go talking about it. Please read the link in the comment by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug immediately above yours.
Specifically: nytimes.com does not let you publish whatever you want as an article on their website; if an article on nytimes.com is libelous, the New York Times is responsible, and can be sued for libel. (Comments on articles on newsites enjoy the same Section 230 protection as Metafilter does, and would also go the way of the dodo in the absence of Section 230.) Meanwhile, metafilter.com does let users post (more-or-less) whatever they want on their website. Mods moderate but do not generally fact-check user comments and posts (and absolutely do not have the resources to do so). If metafilter could be sued for libel based on comments metafilter users posted, this site would absolutely not be financially able to continue to exist - it would either need to invest a ton of money in fact-checkers, or insurance against libel claims, or more likely both, and it definitely can't afford either.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:37 PM on December 9, 2020 [24 favorites]
It's not as tough or complicated as all that, probably, since nytimes.com etc. are still running fine.Um.. still running fine now... with section 230 still in effect you mean? Or, what?
Or you meant that MeFi the WEBSITE could survive being repeatedly sued for libel, in bad faith, by operatives, in multiple jurisdictions, like the NY Times WORLD FAMOUS PAPER is? Dunno if you notice some of the banners at the top of the page around here sometimes.
What keeps that from happening is that MeFi, or other small sites with comments, are not liable for commenters' speech not as a ruling or a finding of fact in each particular case, but as a matter of law. Thanks to 230.
posted by Horkus at 3:40 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
This would likely have the side effect of killing sites like, say, metafilter.com. It's a tough issue.
It's not particularly tough. Specify that 230 doesn't apply to
*Content the web page was paid to publish
*Content a jury determines violated the TOS but wasn't deleted, like Trump's shit on twitter
*Content pushed by the web page, as opposed to dumb-pipe-like content. Youtube showing me the newest things in the channels I've selected or facebook showing me the most recent posts by the friends I've selected? Protected by 230. Youtube showing me a bunch of stuff it says it thinks I'll like or facebook showing me whatever random nonsense their algorithm suggests will keep my eyes on the page? Nup.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:49 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
It's not particularly tough. Specify that 230 doesn't apply to
*Content the web page was paid to publish
*Content a jury determines violated the TOS but wasn't deleted, like Trump's shit on twitter
*Content pushed by the web page, as opposed to dumb-pipe-like content. Youtube showing me the newest things in the channels I've selected or facebook showing me the most recent posts by the friends I've selected? Protected by 230. Youtube showing me a bunch of stuff it says it thinks I'll like or facebook showing me whatever random nonsense their algorithm suggests will keep my eyes on the page? Nup.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:49 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
Or you meant that MeFi the WEBSITE could survive being repeatedly sued for libel, in bad faith, by operatives, in multiple jurisdictions.
500 million bloggers say you are wrong. Bloggers are not protected by Section 230 and do just fine. Metafilter is a moderated site and could also do just fine.
posted by JackFlash at 3:53 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
500 million bloggers say you are wrong. Bloggers are not protected by Section 230 and do just fine. Metafilter is a moderated site and could also do just fine.
posted by JackFlash at 3:53 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Bloggers are not protected by Section 230
Not for comments on our posts?
posted by doctornemo at 4:01 PM on December 9, 2020
Not for comments on our posts?
posted by doctornemo at 4:01 PM on December 9, 2020
Metafilter is a moderated site and could also do just fine.
They could, it's not really all that difficult. But there's a lot invested in keeping Facebook and other tech media companies that sell ads above the laws that are applied to other media companies that are not traditionally tech. That mindset is the part that will be difficult to change.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:03 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
They could, it's not really all that difficult. But there's a lot invested in keeping Facebook and other tech media companies that sell ads above the laws that are applied to other media companies that are not traditionally tech. That mindset is the part that will be difficult to change.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:03 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Thank you, Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug. That linked post has itself a great series of very useful links.
posted by doctornemo at 4:06 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by doctornemo at 4:06 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
could someone please explain how Apple is a monopoly? I get that people don't like the tight control and exclusivity of the App store. But does that mean that Playstation, XBox, and Switch are monopolies too? Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in the smart phone market or the desktop computer market or any of their other markets.
If Facebook is, per this legal filing, "abuses its market power ... to crush smaller competitors" then Apple does the same thing. You're correct that it's not strictly accurate to call it a monopoly, I think that's an easy but inaccurate summary of this particular lawsuit.
posted by GuyZero at 4:18 PM on December 9, 2020
If Facebook is, per this legal filing, "abuses its market power ... to crush smaller competitors" then Apple does the same thing. You're correct that it's not strictly accurate to call it a monopoly, I think that's an easy but inaccurate summary of this particular lawsuit.
posted by GuyZero at 4:18 PM on December 9, 2020
And to give more detail, Apple acquired Siri in 2010 and PA Semi (the team that designed the new M1 chip and every Ax iPhone processor) in 2008. If the government is going to sue FB to reverse the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, are they going to ask to break up Apple next?
posted by GuyZero at 4:21 PM on December 9, 2020
posted by GuyZero at 4:21 PM on December 9, 2020
So will the resulting sites be known as ... baby books?
posted by geoff. at 4:40 PM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by geoff. at 4:40 PM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
I feel like its this unlikely imagined future where section 230 doesn't exist, but there are still platforms that allow wide ranges of user generated content. Without broad liability protection, large platforms will just lock down the abilities of users to post all but the most limited stuff - think about the most annoying aspects of conservative automated filtering and multiply 100x. They won't have to, but it will be the easiest solution to the problem, so it's the one most will take.
Someone upthread said - "well, what about blogs?" and I think clearly that many of the blogging platforms - tumblr, blogger, hosted wordpress all rely on sec. 230. Individual bloggers are beneficiaries of section 230 in that it enables those platforms. Also, individual bloggers on non-platform hosted blogs are often too small to be worth suing.
I actually think there's a deep fundamental conflict between truly free speech and the downsides of mob rule and disinformation on the internet. I think that old ideas about the best cure for fasle/bad speech being more speech may not be empirically true.
There are some interesting examples from the What'sApp world about trying to limit the rate at which texts can be reshared to limit disinformation. It's also a useful counterexample - WhatsApp is a pure platform, with none of the algorithm/paid content that people object to on FaceBook proper, it has still been a dangerous and distorting channel for misinformation. I can't imagine, GCU, that you think that What'sApp should be subject to your standards proposed but group WhatsApp messages and forwarding have been operating in much of the same way.
If nothing else, the anti-consolidation, anti-monopoly aspects of this suit are important so that there are more differently-situated people thinking about this problem and not only one set of people with one set of interests at FaceBook/WhatsApp/Instagram.
posted by mercredi at 4:40 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Someone upthread said - "well, what about blogs?" and I think clearly that many of the blogging platforms - tumblr, blogger, hosted wordpress all rely on sec. 230. Individual bloggers are beneficiaries of section 230 in that it enables those platforms. Also, individual bloggers on non-platform hosted blogs are often too small to be worth suing.
I actually think there's a deep fundamental conflict between truly free speech and the downsides of mob rule and disinformation on the internet. I think that old ideas about the best cure for fasle/bad speech being more speech may not be empirically true.
There are some interesting examples from the What'sApp world about trying to limit the rate at which texts can be reshared to limit disinformation. It's also a useful counterexample - WhatsApp is a pure platform, with none of the algorithm/paid content that people object to on FaceBook proper, it has still been a dangerous and distorting channel for misinformation. I can't imagine, GCU, that you think that What'sApp should be subject to your standards proposed but group WhatsApp messages and forwarding have been operating in much of the same way.
If nothing else, the anti-consolidation, anti-monopoly aspects of this suit are important so that there are more differently-situated people thinking about this problem and not only one set of people with one set of interests at FaceBook/WhatsApp/Instagram.
posted by mercredi at 4:40 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
a coalition of 48 states lead by NYS AG Letitia James have filed a lawsuit against Facebook
So you know how AOC had a whole lot of fans when she was just starting her run for Congress? I'm that kind of fan of Tish James. This is why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:42 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
So you know how AOC had a whole lot of fans when she was just starting her run for Congress? I'm that kind of fan of Tish James. This is why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:42 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
If the argument is "they are a monopoly in tech" then Twitter and TikTok are why they'll win.
If the argument is "they shouldn't have been allowed to buy companies," that's on the FTC.
This will affect Facebook, but they're not going to lose.
posted by jragon at 4:44 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
If the argument is "they shouldn't have been allowed to buy companies," that's on the FTC.
This will affect Facebook, but they're not going to lose.
posted by jragon at 4:44 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don't think you can lay what has happened to education in America over the last 50 years entirely at the feet of Facebook.
Sorry, but I have a hard time taking any sort of "modern state of education" complaint seriously considering that the worst offenders for believing and spreading utter bullshit, especially of the political variety, are old enough to have gotten the best free or cheap education America has ever had to offer.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:49 PM on December 9, 2020 [12 favorites]
Sorry, but I have a hard time taking any sort of "modern state of education" complaint seriously considering that the worst offenders for believing and spreading utter bullshit, especially of the political variety, are old enough to have gotten the best free or cheap education America has ever had to offer.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:49 PM on December 9, 2020 [12 favorites]
could someone please explain how Apple is a monopoly?
It is hard to see it as a monopoly in that it is often in single digits in markets it competes in (though sometimes pulling in most of the profits by dominating the high end). But isn’t there also antitrust law about vertical integration? I wonder if this comes into play if they corner the market on components or materials by buying up capacity or maybe making chips no one can compete with and only putting them in Apple products.
posted by snofoam at 5:00 PM on December 9, 2020
It is hard to see it as a monopoly in that it is often in single digits in markets it competes in (though sometimes pulling in most of the profits by dominating the high end). But isn’t there also antitrust law about vertical integration? I wonder if this comes into play if they corner the market on components or materials by buying up capacity or maybe making chips no one can compete with and only putting them in Apple products.
posted by snofoam at 5:00 PM on December 9, 2020
Does Apple actually have a monopoly in anything? I can't pinpoint any product/service that doesn't have a viable competitor. In fact I think they love having competitors, because usually the competing products are not-so-great and Apple can provide the aspirational product at a honking big markup.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:03 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:03 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Zero interest in seeing chronological feeds enshrined in the law.
posted by Wood at 5:06 PM on December 9, 2020
posted by Wood at 5:06 PM on December 9, 2020
It's been discussed with more nuance and depth by people smarter than me a million times, but here's my understanding:
But isn’t there also antitrust law about vertical integration?
Yes. But it's hard to prove why the market is suffering when Android is everywhere, and cheaper. If I make a stapler that uses special staples, that's allowed. Apple is closer to a fancy stapler than, for example, Microsoft Windows was when it had a chokehold on the most important emerging tech in the world. (Gosh I know I'm going to get a lot of pushback for that statement. So maybe fancy stapler is being too glib. But they're more like Tesla than owning all the country's railroads.)
Does Apple actually have a monopoly in anything?
Not if you go by marketshare. The only way to wrestle the word "monopoly" into what Apple is doing is they are very, very rich. But the ease with which you can not buy an iPhone is why they're never going to be punished. Nor should they, on this topic. It's a non-starter.
posted by jragon at 5:20 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
But isn’t there also antitrust law about vertical integration?
Yes. But it's hard to prove why the market is suffering when Android is everywhere, and cheaper. If I make a stapler that uses special staples, that's allowed. Apple is closer to a fancy stapler than, for example, Microsoft Windows was when it had a chokehold on the most important emerging tech in the world. (Gosh I know I'm going to get a lot of pushback for that statement. So maybe fancy stapler is being too glib. But they're more like Tesla than owning all the country's railroads.)
Does Apple actually have a monopoly in anything?
Not if you go by marketshare. The only way to wrestle the word "monopoly" into what Apple is doing is they are very, very rich. But the ease with which you can not buy an iPhone is why they're never going to be punished. Nor should they, on this topic. It's a non-starter.
posted by jragon at 5:20 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
If the argument is "they are a monopoly in tech" then Twitter and TikTok are why they'll win.
This isn't how antitrust law works. Being a monopoly isn't illegal, but anti-competitive behavior is.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 5:24 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
This isn't how antitrust law works. Being a monopoly isn't illegal, but anti-competitive behavior is.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 5:24 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
This isn't how antitrust law works. Being a monopoly isn't illegal, but anti-competitive behavior is.
I don't claim to be well-versed in this topic, but it's harder to be anti-competitive when there's a ton of competition your lawyers can point to.
You can have 99% marketshare and not be considered anti-competitive because of the way you do business. You can have 5% marketshare and run afoul of the laws because of the way you do business.
But the really interesting stuff if when you have super high marketshare *and* anti-competitive practices. Facebook can easily point to the FTC signing off on their deals, and giant competitors like Google, and end up looking pretty good compared to if they had 99% share.
posted by jragon at 5:27 PM on December 9, 2020
I don't claim to be well-versed in this topic, but it's harder to be anti-competitive when there's a ton of competition your lawyers can point to.
You can have 99% marketshare and not be considered anti-competitive because of the way you do business. You can have 5% marketshare and run afoul of the laws because of the way you do business.
But the really interesting stuff if when you have super high marketshare *and* anti-competitive practices. Facebook can easily point to the FTC signing off on their deals, and giant competitors like Google, and end up looking pretty good compared to if they had 99% share.
posted by jragon at 5:27 PM on December 9, 2020
The very possibility of comprehensively regulating Facebook makes me curious about how China does this sort of thing. Not, of course, that I'd want the internet anywhere to be more like the internet in China, but my impression from poking around at the edges of English-language coverage of this stuff is that in the twenty-first century they actually do pretty well in approaching problems with tightly-controlled multi-vendor market-based solutions, while keeping a boot firmly on the necks of everyone involved.
Not directly related to social media, but last year Human Rights Watch released a comprehensive report based on a tear-down of the government phone app used by Chinese state security forces in Xinjiang province which was pretty interesting† to browse through. Since anything Facebook-like is, IMHO, inevitably going to end up also being a surveillance system (like... I'm a software engineer specializing in internet stuff, and I literally can't imagine a way, for a system with the frequency of use and types of use a comprehensive social media site gets, to design something that doesn't end up collecting enough information on most users to match their profiles up with their real-world identities, even if they aren't required to disclose their real names‡) may as well learn from the pros.
† And horrifying, not only to imagine the lives of the Uyghurs subject to state control but also even just the low-ranking policemen living like a Walmart cashier being monitored for checkout speed and adequate smiling, except also facing physical potentially-violent confrontations in the course of carrying out front-lines-genocide-totalitarianism instead of just retail-wage-peonage several-steps-removed-from-genocides-capitalism.
‡ Not that it's impossible to conceal one's identity from a state actor, of course, it just requires a degree of discipline and sophistication beyond what most people can do—even knowing down to almost every single technical detail what I have to do to conceal my identity on the internet, I still constantly slip up when I'm trying to be extra-super-duper-covert and think, “Auggh, the NSA got me!” (Not by any actual person at the NSA today, of course, as I am of no particular interest except for my sizzling-hot defying-the-Man MeFi comments, but by an NSA AI in 2040 combing through the records of all internet traffic recorded at the Utah “Bumblehive”, when there's a lull in breaking encryption and hence some spare computing power.) Man, looking at what I just wrote here, it's nearly indistinguishable from QAnon stuff; but I swear my less-than-sane enthusiasms lie elsewhere.
posted by XMLicious at 5:48 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
Not directly related to social media, but last year Human Rights Watch released a comprehensive report based on a tear-down of the government phone app used by Chinese state security forces in Xinjiang province which was pretty interesting† to browse through. Since anything Facebook-like is, IMHO, inevitably going to end up also being a surveillance system (like... I'm a software engineer specializing in internet stuff, and I literally can't imagine a way, for a system with the frequency of use and types of use a comprehensive social media site gets, to design something that doesn't end up collecting enough information on most users to match their profiles up with their real-world identities, even if they aren't required to disclose their real names‡) may as well learn from the pros.
† And horrifying, not only to imagine the lives of the Uyghurs subject to state control but also even just the low-ranking policemen living like a Walmart cashier being monitored for checkout speed and adequate smiling, except also facing physical potentially-violent confrontations in the course of carrying out front-lines-genocide-totalitarianism instead of just retail-wage-peonage several-steps-removed-from-genocides-capitalism.
‡ Not that it's impossible to conceal one's identity from a state actor, of course, it just requires a degree of discipline and sophistication beyond what most people can do—even knowing down to almost every single technical detail what I have to do to conceal my identity on the internet, I still constantly slip up when I'm trying to be extra-super-duper-covert and think, “Auggh, the NSA got me!” (Not by any actual person at the NSA today, of course, as I am of no particular interest except for my sizzling-hot defying-the-Man MeFi comments, but by an NSA AI in 2040 combing through the records of all internet traffic recorded at the Utah “Bumblehive”, when there's a lull in breaking encryption and hence some spare computing power.) Man, looking at what I just wrote here, it's nearly indistinguishable from QAnon stuff; but I swear my less-than-sane enthusiasms lie elsewhere.
posted by XMLicious at 5:48 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
Apple's sole monopoly is "distribution of software on Apple's phones." Compared to the other major tech companies the fix is relatively trivial in that enabling alternative digital marketplaces to be installed and bypass signed executable requirements would likely require a mid-level reworking of certain portions of the operating system but that's small beer compared to the total software ecology/platform rewrite the other companies being discussed would likely need.
In any other profitable market sector Apple has neither a monopoly nor a dominant marketshare. If the government goes after Apple it will be because the FBI really, really wants a court-admissible backdoor into your encrypted data and Apple has publicly told them to piss up a rope. Nobody else has Apple's combination of size, infinite cash, and media darling status: take a way any of those three and they'd have to cave like their competitors have. I generally agree with Epic that Apple needs to sharply reduce their App Store cut for the world of 2020, but otherwise this is pretty much the only tech giant where consumers are largely benefitting from the status quo.
...Okay, also they need to cut the shit with changing the iPhone UI every ten fucking minutes. I can't believe I have to actually type in my wakeup alarm time now like some kind of backwoods swamp person. Jobs wept.
posted by Ryvar at 5:53 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
In any other profitable market sector Apple has neither a monopoly nor a dominant marketshare. If the government goes after Apple it will be because the FBI really, really wants a court-admissible backdoor into your encrypted data and Apple has publicly told them to piss up a rope. Nobody else has Apple's combination of size, infinite cash, and media darling status: take a way any of those three and they'd have to cave like their competitors have. I generally agree with Epic that Apple needs to sharply reduce their App Store cut for the world of 2020, but otherwise this is pretty much the only tech giant where consumers are largely benefitting from the status quo.
...Okay, also they need to cut the shit with changing the iPhone UI every ten fucking minutes. I can't believe I have to actually type in my wakeup alarm time now like some kind of backwoods swamp person. Jobs wept.
posted by Ryvar at 5:53 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sadly, there are people who only vote the top of the ticket, Prez and VP, and maybe a senator or governor. Who your AG is is important, and so is every 'down ballot' official.
posted by Cranberry at 5:57 PM on December 9, 2020
posted by Cranberry at 5:57 PM on December 9, 2020
500 million bloggers say you are wrong. Bloggers are not protected by Section 230 and do just fine. Metafilter is a moderated site and could also do just fine.
I think sites like metafilter and others that have active content moderation would actually do better with non-moderated content/Sec.230 struck down. Since they have smaller user bases, and staff already in place, they would be the fastest to post content. Facebook and the other behemoths would slow to an absolute BBS crawl if they had (by law) to human-verify even a tiny fraction of their content for TOS/libel/misinfo/disinfo/etc before it could be posted. And maybe that should be the case. I mean, we don't let newspapers publish every libelous, threatening, racist, fraudulent 'letter to the editor' that they recieve. We don't allow that on TV, or the radio, or books...why would we allow it in other media? And I personally believe you should be able to exercise that 1st amendment and say whaaaaaatever you want on the internet...on your own damn blog. And be responsible for it. These companies are publishers. They shouldn't be allowed to publish content that would be illegal in any other medium.
If Sec.230 does get struck down (and it absolutely should), and Facebook left a flaming ruin and Mark Z launched into the sun (shut up. let me dream.), I think we could see a return to some of the cool old web as groups drift away from (the flaming wreckage of) FB,twitter,insta,reddit,et al, nucleating around subjects/hobbies/communities/etc. *Sigh* That's probably all wishful thinking, but it sure sounds nice. And if we ever miss (the flaming ruin of) Facebook, well, we can always go back to calling each other Hitler in bulletin boards and chat rooms. We'll always have Godwin.
posted by sexyrobot at 6:02 PM on December 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
I think sites like metafilter and others that have active content moderation would actually do better with non-moderated content/Sec.230 struck down. Since they have smaller user bases, and staff already in place, they would be the fastest to post content. Facebook and the other behemoths would slow to an absolute BBS crawl if they had (by law) to human-verify even a tiny fraction of their content for TOS/libel/misinfo/disinfo/etc before it could be posted. And maybe that should be the case. I mean, we don't let newspapers publish every libelous, threatening, racist, fraudulent 'letter to the editor' that they recieve. We don't allow that on TV, or the radio, or books...why would we allow it in other media? And I personally believe you should be able to exercise that 1st amendment and say whaaaaaatever you want on the internet...on your own damn blog. And be responsible for it. These companies are publishers. They shouldn't be allowed to publish content that would be illegal in any other medium.
If Sec.230 does get struck down (and it absolutely should), and Facebook left a flaming ruin and Mark Z launched into the sun (shut up. let me dream.), I think we could see a return to some of the cool old web as groups drift away from (the flaming wreckage of) FB,twitter,insta,reddit,et al, nucleating around subjects/hobbies/communities/etc. *Sigh* That's probably all wishful thinking, but it sure sounds nice. And if we ever miss (the flaming ruin of) Facebook, well, we can always go back to calling each other Hitler in bulletin boards and chat rooms. We'll always have Godwin.
posted by sexyrobot at 6:02 PM on December 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
Apple's sole monopoly is "distribution of software on Apple's phones." Compared to the other major tech companies the fix is relatively trivial in that enabling alternative digital marketplaces to be installed and bypass signed executable requirements would likely require a mid-level reworking of certain portions of the operating system but that's small beer compared to the total software ecology/platform rewrite the other companies being discussed would likely need.
It's a monopoly but it's not anti-competitive which is where the competition laws usually try to target. It's just that normally you need a monopoly to be able to control the market so much that these anti-competitive practices are viable.
Apple doesn't contract its app distribution business out to anyone. You can't "buy " Apple's app store distribution on another platform. Consoles have been doing this for over four decades and it's settled law. Requiring a potential ecosystem member to use your methods exclusively is not anti-competitive but at the same time, you can't stop them if they find a way to work around them. That's probably why altstore hasn't been sued out of existence.
It would be anti-competitive if Apple also ran an app store on Android and required that all submissions to the iPhone app store also get exclusively distributed by Apple on their Android app store platform as well. That's using their monopoly power in one market (iPhone software distribution) to distort another (Android software distribution) and that's where anti-competitive behavior lies. But without Apple using their monopoly power to screw over another market, it's going to be a stretch to make the case that it's anti-competitive.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:10 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's a monopoly but it's not anti-competitive which is where the competition laws usually try to target. It's just that normally you need a monopoly to be able to control the market so much that these anti-competitive practices are viable.
Apple doesn't contract its app distribution business out to anyone. You can't "buy " Apple's app store distribution on another platform. Consoles have been doing this for over four decades and it's settled law. Requiring a potential ecosystem member to use your methods exclusively is not anti-competitive but at the same time, you can't stop them if they find a way to work around them. That's probably why altstore hasn't been sued out of existence.
It would be anti-competitive if Apple also ran an app store on Android and required that all submissions to the iPhone app store also get exclusively distributed by Apple on their Android app store platform as well. That's using their monopoly power in one market (iPhone software distribution) to distort another (Android software distribution) and that's where anti-competitive behavior lies. But without Apple using their monopoly power to screw over another market, it's going to be a stretch to make the case that it's anti-competitive.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:10 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
If Sec.230 does get struck down (and it absolutely should)
You like posting on Metafilter? If Sec 230 goes away it's either you indemnify MeFi or they put themselves in danger of unlimited liability for a $5 signup and whatever monthly donations you give. Section 230 isn't perfect but at least it actually does a decent job of protecting the little people as well.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:12 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
You like posting on Metafilter? If Sec 230 goes away it's either you indemnify MeFi or they put themselves in danger of unlimited liability for a $5 signup and whatever monthly donations you give. Section 230 isn't perfect but at least it actually does a decent job of protecting the little people as well.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:12 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
like... I'm a software engineer specializing in internet stuff, and I literally can't imagine a way, for a system with the frequency of use and types of use a comprehensive social media site gets, to design something that doesn't end up collecting enough information on most users to match their profiles up with their real-world identities, even if they aren't required to disclose their real names
As someone who also does Internet stuff I would hazard to guess that with a few key parameters (eductation? city?) and even more telling, even a few key social connections it would be trivial to identify someone. And I when I mean "a few key" I mean truly a few key things. No need for oversharing, I'm sure if you someone made a rudimentary effort to find out who I am based on my username alone they'd find my real world identity. Now apply that to automated machine learning techniques that look writing patterns or even reconstruct 3D photo locations.
posted by geoff. at 6:48 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
As someone who also does Internet stuff I would hazard to guess that with a few key parameters (eductation? city?) and even more telling, even a few key social connections it would be trivial to identify someone. And I when I mean "a few key" I mean truly a few key things. No need for oversharing, I'm sure if you someone made a rudimentary effort to find out who I am based on my username alone they'd find my real world identity. Now apply that to automated machine learning techniques that look writing patterns or even reconstruct 3D photo locations.
posted by geoff. at 6:48 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Some actual details from the FTC press release at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization:
(note: I am, of course, not a lawyer of any sort)
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
This definitely sounds like classic anticompetitive behaviour. Leveraging dominance in one sector to dominate another.
For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
Yep. Sounds a lot like Microsoft prohibiting PC OEMs from distributing competing web browsers back in the day.
That said, MSFT never got broken up, they just got fined and told to stop it. Seems like breaking it up isn't going to do much about these particular charges.
posted by GuyZero at 7:00 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
(note: I am, of course, not a lawyer of any sort)
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
This definitely sounds like classic anticompetitive behaviour. Leveraging dominance in one sector to dominate another.
For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
Yep. Sounds a lot like Microsoft prohibiting PC OEMs from distributing competing web browsers back in the day.
That said, MSFT never got broken up, they just got fined and told to stop it. Seems like breaking it up isn't going to do much about these particular charges.
posted by GuyZero at 7:00 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think sites like metafilter and others that have active content moderation would actually do better with non-moderated content/Sec.230 struck down. Since they have smaller user bases, and staff already in place, they would be the fastest to post content.
They won’t have any time to moderate because they’ll be spending 12 hours a day dealing with the billions of dollars of outstanding litigation.
Something like 80% of all American with Disabilities Act related ligation is done by less than 20 law firms. Is that because they just reeeaaally care about Americans with Disabilities? Fuck no. Is because the ADA allows the lawyers bringing the suits to recover their legal costs. In fact, lots of suits are settled and the actual problem just gets ignored.
Same type of thing will happen on places like MetaFilter. Law firms will just search for their clients’ names and fire off a form letter threatening a suit unless Cortex sends them $5k or whatever. Repeat as many times as there corporations mentioned on this site...eventually it’s cheaper and easier to shut it down.
posted by sideshow at 7:06 PM on December 9, 2020
They won’t have any time to moderate because they’ll be spending 12 hours a day dealing with the billions of dollars of outstanding litigation.
Something like 80% of all American with Disabilities Act related ligation is done by less than 20 law firms. Is that because they just reeeaaally care about Americans with Disabilities? Fuck no. Is because the ADA allows the lawyers bringing the suits to recover their legal costs. In fact, lots of suits are settled and the actual problem just gets ignored.
Same type of thing will happen on places like MetaFilter. Law firms will just search for their clients’ names and fire off a form letter threatening a suit unless Cortex sends them $5k or whatever. Repeat as many times as there corporations mentioned on this site...eventually it’s cheaper and easier to shut it down.
posted by sideshow at 7:06 PM on December 9, 2020
If it wasn't for 230 Metafilter probably would have been taken down by legal action from He Who Shall Not Be Named over Ikkyu2's hypothetical genetic analysis of said individual. The existence of the site is owed to 230 for at least the last 15 years.
posted by Mitheral at 7:17 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 7:17 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
Something like 80% of all American with Disabilities Act related ligation is done by less than 20 law firms.
In my area there's actually an organization that goes around and "verifies" that a store has met the ADA access requirements, in exchange for a fee. In return, they defend against the ADA trolls that file suits with no intent of actually litigating (or, judging from tales, any interest in actually visiting the location in question to check their claims vs. reality). California seems to have a lot of this sort of thing (Prop65 warnings, anyone?).
...this is how I know that the concept of barratry is an arrant lie. There is no such thing as barratry in the modern legal system, despite many claims to the contrary, and this is why things like 230 are important. A rule which is not enforced is a rule which does not exist.
posted by aramaic at 7:38 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
In my area there's actually an organization that goes around and "verifies" that a store has met the ADA access requirements, in exchange for a fee. In return, they defend against the ADA trolls that file suits with no intent of actually litigating (or, judging from tales, any interest in actually visiting the location in question to check their claims vs. reality). California seems to have a lot of this sort of thing (Prop65 warnings, anyone?).
...this is how I know that the concept of barratry is an arrant lie. There is no such thing as barratry in the modern legal system, despite many claims to the contrary, and this is why things like 230 are important. A rule which is not enforced is a rule which does not exist.
posted by aramaic at 7:38 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
As someone who also does Internet stuff I would hazard to guess that with a few key parameters (eductation? city?) and even more telling, even a few key social connections it would be trivial to identify someone. And I when I mean "a few key" I mean truly a few key things.
Yeah, I probably should have mentioned that, for example, a person's SSN can be calculated from their place and date of birth with a fair degree of accuracy without even correlating it with information from databases. It really is pretty much impossible to make something like a social media network that isn't also a surveillance system; even if you put it on the quantum dark interwebs or something and forbade everyone to mention offline “real life” at all, in the long run, with sustained interaction, everyone will drop enough minute bits of information that can be correlated with their behavior elsewhere.
posted by XMLicious at 7:47 PM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
I can't believe I have to actually type in my wakeup alarm time now like some kind of backwoods swamp person.
Under edit, press and hold the alarm hour and move your finger up and down to adjust. Same for minutes field. It’s still bad UI, but at least you don’t have to type.
posted by Celsius1414 at 7:47 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
I mean, we don't let newspapers publish every libelous, threatening, racist, fraudulent 'letter to the editor' that they recieve.
Don't we let them do exactly that, in website comment sections?
posted by Dysk at 10:25 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Don't we let them do exactly that, in website comment sections?
posted by Dysk at 10:25 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Content pushed by the web page, as opposed to dumb-pipe-like content. Youtube showing me the newest things in the channels I've selected or facebook showing me the most recent posts by the friends I've selected? Protected by 230. Youtube showing me a bunch of stuff it says it thinks I'll like or facebook showing me whatever random nonsense their algorithm suggests will keep my eyes on the page? Nup.
Legal precedent is that Section 230 already does not cover content pushed by the webpage. Facebook and YouTube are already legally liable for their sites' recommendations, assuming you can prove it's illegal.
I actually think there's a deep fundamental conflict between truly free speech and the downsides of mob rule and disinformation on the internet. I think that old ideas about the best cure for fasle/bad speech being more speech may not be empirically true.
I've been banging this drum for decades - or, more specifically, that Americans' view about free speech doesn't actually work - and it's only been in the last few years that it hasn't started fights. But yeah, duh, the "marketplace of ideas" never existed and free speech is a weapon, which means it can be dangerous. There is value in deciding that an argument is settled and enshrining it in law.
posted by Merus at 1:32 AM on December 10, 2020 [5 favorites]
Legal precedent is that Section 230 already does not cover content pushed by the webpage. Facebook and YouTube are already legally liable for their sites' recommendations, assuming you can prove it's illegal.
I actually think there's a deep fundamental conflict between truly free speech and the downsides of mob rule and disinformation on the internet. I think that old ideas about the best cure for fasle/bad speech being more speech may not be empirically true.
I've been banging this drum for decades - or, more specifically, that Americans' view about free speech doesn't actually work - and it's only been in the last few years that it hasn't started fights. But yeah, duh, the "marketplace of ideas" never existed and free speech is a weapon, which means it can be dangerous. There is value in deciding that an argument is settled and enshrining it in law.
posted by Merus at 1:32 AM on December 10, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yep. Sounds a lot like Microsoft prohibiting PC OEMs from distributing competing web browsers back in the day.
They were not prohibited, MS just changed a fee per computer sold whether or not said computer had Windows or Internet Explorer. So, if Dell wanted to sell Linux boxes with Netscape Navigator, they had to pay for a Windows/IE license. So it was more a financial pressure tactic (OEMs were going to pay for the software either way, why would sell machines with someone else's stuff?) they could pull off based on their ownership of the desktop market, rather than a "here is a free browser!" tactic.
This distinction matters since everyone seems to wrong remember the latter thing, which isn't what got them busted, and they use that wrong thing to guess how current litigation will go.
For your FB/Vine metaphor to be accurate, FB would need to charge someone for API access and still change them for users who used a product that didn't use said API access.
posted by sideshow at 10:23 AM on December 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
They were not prohibited, MS just changed a fee per computer sold whether or not said computer had Windows or Internet Explorer. So, if Dell wanted to sell Linux boxes with Netscape Navigator, they had to pay for a Windows/IE license. So it was more a financial pressure tactic (OEMs were going to pay for the software either way, why would sell machines with someone else's stuff?) they could pull off based on their ownership of the desktop market, rather than a "here is a free browser!" tactic.
This distinction matters since everyone seems to wrong remember the latter thing, which isn't what got them busted, and they use that wrong thing to guess how current litigation will go.
For your FB/Vine metaphor to be accurate, FB would need to charge someone for API access and still change them for users who used a product that didn't use said API access.
posted by sideshow at 10:23 AM on December 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
It really is pretty much impossible to make something like a social media network that isn't also a surveillance system
I don't believe this at all. It's like saying it's impossible to run a bar without promoting drunk driving, all you have to do is not do it. There are all kinds of measurements that don't need to be taken, data that doesn't need to be collected, for a website to run just fine. Sure, "we use cookies to improve the site," but a) how and whether that happens; and b) it's not that bad anyway. Site performance is a ruse, and until recently (React and other piecemeal shitloader JavaScript frameworks) the user's connection to the internet was almost always the limiting factor.
You can run a website, a web app, a massively multi-user social network, without knowing peoples' ages and races. Or locations. Or any of the other redlining criteria. Just because some companies will pay more to only advertise to white people doesn't mean it's a requirement, and I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook could charge the same rates without it, just maybe a little less often.
posted by rhizome at 11:28 AM on December 10, 2020
I don't believe this at all. It's like saying it's impossible to run a bar without promoting drunk driving, all you have to do is not do it. There are all kinds of measurements that don't need to be taken, data that doesn't need to be collected, for a website to run just fine. Sure, "we use cookies to improve the site," but a) how and whether that happens; and b) it's not that bad anyway. Site performance is a ruse, and until recently (React and other piecemeal shitloader JavaScript frameworks) the user's connection to the internet was almost always the limiting factor.
You can run a website, a web app, a massively multi-user social network, without knowing peoples' ages and races. Or locations. Or any of the other redlining criteria. Just because some companies will pay more to only advertise to white people doesn't mean it's a requirement, and I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook could charge the same rates without it, just maybe a little less often.
posted by rhizome at 11:28 AM on December 10, 2020
Oh, and I forgot to mention that doing all of that surveillance requires code in the page that what? Slows it down.
posted by rhizome at 11:30 AM on December 10, 2020
posted by rhizome at 11:30 AM on December 10, 2020
Cory Doctorow goes off on Borkism and the American definition of a "monopoly" and why Facebook should get broken up.
His points on the particular American definition of "monopoly" and the political beliefs that underly it are well-made. A monopoly in the anti-trust sense probably isn't what you think it is.
posted by GuyZero at 12:26 PM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
His points on the particular American definition of "monopoly" and the political beliefs that underly it are well-made. A monopoly in the anti-trust sense probably isn't what you think it is.
posted by GuyZero at 12:26 PM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
GuyZero: "Apple absolutely, positively runs a bigger monopoly than FB does."
I keep hearing things like this. Is it true?
Desktop computers: Apple = 17.7%, Windows = 76.3%
Smartphones: Apple = 26.5%, Android 72.9%
Oh wait did you mean market share?
Desktop: Apple = 9.75%, Windows = 86.92%, Linux = 2.8%
Smartphone + Tablet: Apple = 28.8%, Android 70.8%, Windows >1%
Meanwhile social media: Facebook = 69% (+3.2% more for Instagram), Pinterest 13.9%, Twitter 8.2%, YouTube 3.9%
There is not a single place that Apple has anything approaching a monopoly EXCEPT ON APPLE DEVICES. And that only holds true on iOS, for apps, because you have to buy through Apple or jailbreak the device. This is like complaining that games for your Switch have to be purchased through the Nintendo app store (or with Nintendo licensing). No one forces anyone to use Apple products and the vast majority of the world doesn't choose to use them. If you want a smartphone and don't want to be locked into the Apple App Store, congratulations, you are in the majority! But if you don't like Facebook and don't want to use Facebook, you really don't have viable alternatives for your social media outlets now do you?
If you want to talk about monopolies and tech companies that make operating systems, look at Microsoft or Google. The Apple comparison is just not accurate and never will be. (They make a shit-ton of money, don't get me wrong, but they absolutely do not do that by being a monopoly in any market on a global scale. They're a high-end boutique OS. I am saying this as a long-time Mac user. We've got 3 computers, 3 phones, 2 tablets and a watch in our house from Apple. They sell higher-priced stuff to people who are willing to pay more. It is not at all surprising that a person willing to plunk down $1200 on a new iPhone 12+ will ALSO willingly buy more paid apps than someone who gets an Android for free with their Verizon contract. But "people spend more money per person on platform X" does not make platform X a monopoly when 70+% of the world uses platform Y!)
posted by caution live frogs at 2:45 PM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
I keep hearing things like this. Is it true?
Desktop computers: Apple = 17.7%, Windows = 76.3%
Smartphones: Apple = 26.5%, Android 72.9%
Oh wait did you mean market share?
Desktop: Apple = 9.75%, Windows = 86.92%, Linux = 2.8%
Smartphone + Tablet: Apple = 28.8%, Android 70.8%, Windows >1%
Meanwhile social media: Facebook = 69% (+3.2% more for Instagram), Pinterest 13.9%, Twitter 8.2%, YouTube 3.9%
There is not a single place that Apple has anything approaching a monopoly EXCEPT ON APPLE DEVICES. And that only holds true on iOS, for apps, because you have to buy through Apple or jailbreak the device. This is like complaining that games for your Switch have to be purchased through the Nintendo app store (or with Nintendo licensing). No one forces anyone to use Apple products and the vast majority of the world doesn't choose to use them. If you want a smartphone and don't want to be locked into the Apple App Store, congratulations, you are in the majority! But if you don't like Facebook and don't want to use Facebook, you really don't have viable alternatives for your social media outlets now do you?
If you want to talk about monopolies and tech companies that make operating systems, look at Microsoft or Google. The Apple comparison is just not accurate and never will be. (They make a shit-ton of money, don't get me wrong, but they absolutely do not do that by being a monopoly in any market on a global scale. They're a high-end boutique OS. I am saying this as a long-time Mac user. We've got 3 computers, 3 phones, 2 tablets and a watch in our house from Apple. They sell higher-priced stuff to people who are willing to pay more. It is not at all surprising that a person willing to plunk down $1200 on a new iPhone 12+ will ALSO willingly buy more paid apps than someone who gets an Android for free with their Verizon contract. But "people spend more money per person on platform X" does not make platform X a monopoly when 70+% of the world uses platform Y!)
posted by caution live frogs at 2:45 PM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
If you want to talk about monopolies and tech companies that make operating systems, look at Microsoft or Google. The Apple comparison is just not accurate and never will be.
If we use the US definition of monopoly as a dominating business that causes consumer harm, sure, Apple could have a monopoly. Apple takes a 30% cut of all app store sales. If there was competition, that could be 0%. Payment processors like Square typically take more like 2.6% of a transaction in processing costs. Assuming the Apple App Store is a $50B business, they take $15B. Cutting the fee to 10% of that (to 3%) puts $13.5B back into consumer's pockets. Seems like a reasonable US antitrust target.
Is this a great argument? Not really. But Apple's App Store is absolutely, positively anticompetitive. It's also great and probably a necessary monopoly, but like electricity or water, the government tends to come in and make regulations on what companies can charge for the service.
posted by GuyZero at 3:13 PM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
If we use the US definition of monopoly as a dominating business that causes consumer harm, sure, Apple could have a monopoly. Apple takes a 30% cut of all app store sales. If there was competition, that could be 0%. Payment processors like Square typically take more like 2.6% of a transaction in processing costs. Assuming the Apple App Store is a $50B business, they take $15B. Cutting the fee to 10% of that (to 3%) puts $13.5B back into consumer's pockets. Seems like a reasonable US antitrust target.
Is this a great argument? Not really. But Apple's App Store is absolutely, positively anticompetitive. It's also great and probably a necessary monopoly, but like electricity or water, the government tends to come in and make regulations on what companies can charge for the service.
posted by GuyZero at 3:13 PM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
I mean, as much as I agree that FB shuts down access to its platform as a way to harm potential competitors and that that's bad, I haven't seen anyone draw a direct line between that and consumer costs.
posted by GuyZero at 3:17 PM on December 10, 2020
posted by GuyZero at 3:17 PM on December 10, 2020
But Apple's App Store is absolutely, positively anticompetitive.
Even if the app store were the relevant market in question, it still doesn't arise to anti-trust levels of anticompetitive.
I can't go into a Pizza Hut and demand a Whopper made by Burger King simply because I'm the consumer and I demand competitive choices. It's anticompetitive because at that very moment in time my purchase options right in front of me are limited to what's at Pizza Hut. But I can walk out there store, go down the block, and still get my Whopper if I want it.
The same if I want something that's available on Android but not iOS because of Apple app store policy. I'm perfectly capable of selling my iPhone, buying a Galaxy, and enjoying what's available over there. Apple isn't stopping me from doing that by maintaining a monopoly on their software distribution channel on iOS.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:32 PM on December 10, 2020
Even if the app store were the relevant market in question, it still doesn't arise to anti-trust levels of anticompetitive.
I can't go into a Pizza Hut and demand a Whopper made by Burger King simply because I'm the consumer and I demand competitive choices. It's anticompetitive because at that very moment in time my purchase options right in front of me are limited to what's at Pizza Hut. But I can walk out there store, go down the block, and still get my Whopper if I want it.
The same if I want something that's available on Android but not iOS because of Apple app store policy. I'm perfectly capable of selling my iPhone, buying a Galaxy, and enjoying what's available over there. Apple isn't stopping me from doing that by maintaining a monopoly on their software distribution channel on iOS.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:32 PM on December 10, 2020
Again, I'm not an antitrust lawyer, but read the statement the DOJ issues about the case against Google and see how many of the bullet points apply to Apple.
My personal opinion is that the Google case has zero merit, but people much smarter and with way more expertise than me are the ones doing the filing, so, maybe there's merit.
posted by GuyZero at 3:45 PM on December 10, 2020
My personal opinion is that the Google case has zero merit, but people much smarter and with way more expertise than me are the ones doing the filing, so, maybe there's merit.
posted by GuyZero at 3:45 PM on December 10, 2020
Why is this thread turning into another Apple whine fest, can we just not? Jesus.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:58 PM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:58 PM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
but people much smarter and with way more expertise than me are the ones doing the filing, so, maybe there's merit
...just a reminder that Barr rushed the case against the fairly strenuous objections of the people actually doing the case, so whatever merit there could have been is probably not actually in this case as filed. Showboating stooge gonna showboat.
Why is this thread turning into another Apple whine fest, can we just not? Jesus.
Lest we forget, Aramaic's Rule: any internet discussion of technology, given sufficient time, must inevitably devolve into an argument regarding Apple product strategy.
posted by aramaic at 4:00 PM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
...just a reminder that Barr rushed the case against the fairly strenuous objections of the people actually doing the case, so whatever merit there could have been is probably not actually in this case as filed. Showboating stooge gonna showboat.
Why is this thread turning into another Apple whine fest, can we just not? Jesus.
Lest we forget, Aramaic's Rule: any internet discussion of technology, given sufficient time, must inevitably devolve into an argument regarding Apple product strategy.
posted by aramaic at 4:00 PM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
yes, please read Doctorow's commentary on the FB case instead, it's much better than my uninformed ramblings
posted by GuyZero at 4:04 PM on December 10, 2020
posted by GuyZero at 4:04 PM on December 10, 2020
Although, in the breaking news department: Cydia sues Apple alleging its App Store has a monopoly
posted by GuyZero at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2020
posted by GuyZero at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2020
Fun reading Mefi opinion at the time seems to be divided over whether they overpaid, whether IG was a competitor or not, and whether Yahoo could have been worth a billion dollars if they had the right ten people running Flickr.
posted by pwnguin at 10:00 PM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by pwnguin at 10:00 PM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is going to be awkward since the FTC already approved those acquisitions and afaik, there haven't been any regulatory changes since then.
Just a note on this point--although FTC closed their investigation of the Facebook-Instagram acquisition without taking any action, but that doesn't mean that FTC "approved" the acquisition. In fact, the letter they sent to Facebook's lawyers explicitly says that closing the investigation is not a determination that there was no violation, and that FTC reserves the right to take further action in the future. The FTC's legal complaint against Facebook is an interesting read, with multiple quotes from Zuckerberg himself on internal emails implying that the purpose of these acquisitions was explicitly to squash potential competitors. It's possible some of this evidence wasn't available in 2012.
posted by Pfardentrott at 10:56 AM on December 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
Just a note on this point--although FTC closed their investigation of the Facebook-Instagram acquisition without taking any action, but that doesn't mean that FTC "approved" the acquisition. In fact, the letter they sent to Facebook's lawyers explicitly says that closing the investigation is not a determination that there was no violation, and that FTC reserves the right to take further action in the future. The FTC's legal complaint against Facebook is an interesting read, with multiple quotes from Zuckerberg himself on internal emails implying that the purpose of these acquisitions was explicitly to squash potential competitors. It's possible some of this evidence wasn't available in 2012.
posted by Pfardentrott at 10:56 AM on December 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
Apologies if it's linked in any of the links above, but People are saying a good deal of the credit for these movements in regulatory enforcement is due to Dina Srinivasan, whose 2019 UC Berkeley law review paper about Facebook's antitrust qualities and quantities mapped a lot of the landscape now being explored by the FTC & DOJ.
posted by rhizome at 12:06 PM on December 13, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 12:06 PM on December 13, 2020 [3 favorites]
Seems like there is a division of labor in the government with the Justice Department going after Google and the FTC pursuing Facebook.
I’m skeptical that the government will go after another part of big tech until they get these cases much further along.
posted by interogative mood at 7:34 AM on December 14, 2020
I’m skeptical that the government will go after another part of big tech until they get these cases much further along.
posted by interogative mood at 7:34 AM on December 14, 2020
I predict Google is going to be way more complicated than Facebook, casewise. Google has Gordian technology, while Facebook is straight up market and user abuse.
posted by rhizome at 11:58 AM on December 14, 2020
posted by rhizome at 11:58 AM on December 14, 2020
« Older The Incredible Lightness of Being | Dark Side of the Moon as College Ensemble Pice Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by kerf at 12:30 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]