Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Judge rejects Facebook bid to derail US antitrust suit


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

US Europe Japan Aussie or India needs to make another social media asap I n most of my friends r using FB only there is no alternative to the biased FB

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Short of creating an ID for every site you visit there are two ways to login....Facebook or Google. In fact this very site has the options of an ID you make or Facebook. You don't see sites saying you can use Twitter, Snapchat, Tumblr, LinkedIn (well except for a precious few), kik, or other social networking sites.

Also, Facebook saw how successful Instagram was and rather than compete with it on a level playing field they bought it. Same with WhatsApp. If they are not stopped who will be next?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

AviBajaj: "US Europe Japan Aussie or India needs to make another social media asap I n most of my friends r using FB only there is no alternative to the biased FB"

I mentioned some in my last post that you can check out but I can add to that: Imgur, Reddit, Line, Pinterest, Discord, TikTok, Tuskee, Telegram, Tagged (also owns Hi5), YouTube

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well great bt another hurdle is how to make all my friends on FB to shift to other site

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not a monopoly unless Facebook are restricting patent use.

As long as there are no barriers to others doing it, it can't be a monopoly.

Most of the companies that Facebook buys are integrated into it for added functionality or to buy users.

If patent use is available, anyone can do this. A better model, with more privacy and fewer overheads would be partially or wholly distributed. LINE uses a slightly more distributed model. You can even build an entire distributed social media system using the e-mail protocol.

You can improve on Facebook quite easily by offering users far more control over the content they wish to block from their own feeds, and allowing communal blocking. This would allow a small number of people to protect a large number of like-minded people from content they do not want to see, without centralised censorship. You can also degrade the quality of images, which users can then progressively clarify until they see it might be something unpleasant. They can then report it without seeing it clearly.

As with any product, the features Facebook does not include can be added, and the things that annoy people can be dropped or users offered the chance to opt out of them.

It would be very easy to build a better-then-Facebook alternative. As for the metaverse, it just yells niche. Integrating Animal Crossing with social media features would probably work better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

t's not a monopoly unless Facebook are restricting patent use.

As long as there are no barriers to others doing it, it can't be a monopoly.

Both statements are incorrect. A barrier to entry could be something as simple as the minimum efficient scale of production is so large relative to a given market that there is only room for two firms. Big intercontinental airliners is such a market.

The degree of monopoly power is measured by market share, the monopolists market share and the market share of any competitors. If a firm has, say 85 or 90 percent of the market and a handful of small firms share that last 10-15 percent between them then you effectively have a monopoly.

When Adam Smith and David Ricardo wrote about the benefits of market capitalism they envisioned markets where there were so many sellers and buyers that no one participant in a market had the ability to affect market price. Rather the broad interaction of multitudes of buyers and sellers, the so-called "invisible hand" would set the market price. All participants in the market were "price takers". Supply would equal demand and the prices and profits are bid down to the lowest possible level so further price reduction is not possible.

Real life often doesn't look like this but without reciting 75 years of econometric research, there needs to be at least six firms with roughly equal market share competing against each other to realize the notional benefits of a competitive market. If you have two firms with 90% market share and six or seven tiny firms scrapping over the 10% left over that is not a competitive market. The two dominant firms in this oligopoly behave like monopolists, raising prices and reducing output trying to get to that point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost and profits are maximized. That is not healthy for an economy and it is the dominant market form in many major consumer markets.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise.

With your reasoning, Mozilla and Altavista would have been unshakeable monopolies. But they were never broken up by state intervention.

It doesn't matter what percentage of market share you have, if you have a markedly better product, access to VC and no patent blocks, you can compete. How well you compete is another matter.

You will never get 6 competing firms in much of the tech sector. Many areas run with an 80/20 split. Most have to, as you need a high level of compatibility. If we didn't have that, IT would be a complete mess. Economic theories are not universally applicable. They were based on historical data, and times change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites