Facebook down

[Edge-]

what are they, because the main point of them being a monopoly is easily proven incorrect.

I mean given the scope of services that went down and the huge disruption globally that resulted from it, not just domestically...yeah.

Are they a hard-monopoly? No. Have they created, like many companies, soft-monopolies where they're the primary/only major player in a space? Absolutely. Are they part of what can easily be viewed as an oligopoly? Absolutely. Do they have a history of anti-competitive practices like constantly buying out other social media platforms like Instagram to prevent them from becoming actual competitors? Absolutely. Have the recently leaked documents and testimony painted a picture of a company that's become far, far too large to even manage itself and happily and knowingly lets its platform do massive amounts of direct harm globally, including by acting as a platform to promote hate and organize ethnic cleansings without much of a check from Facebook (whose reporting admits that they only action 2-3% of rule breaking content)? You bet your ass.

Anti competitive actions are a much better route for the govt to take and can even result in breaking up parts of the business because of it.

Porque no los dos?

[Zan15]

There are data centers all over the place. Weird that those went down, but it seems to be a local thing and I haven't the technical knowledge to even take a credible guess as to why.

well one bad push by facebook, one bad upgrade rotation.....and poof goes the service.
Seems most of the time its a bad router/service upgrade and they are resorted to having to reset each locally. Can you imagine the time....

- - - Updated - - -

I mean given the scope of services that went down and the huge disruption globally that resulted from it, not just domestically...yeah.

Are they a hard-monopoly? No. Have they created, like many companies, soft-monopolies where they're the primary/only major player in a space? Absolutely. Are they part of what can easily be viewed as an oligopoly? Absolutely. Do they have a history of anti-competitive practices like constantly buying out other social media platforms like Instagram to prevent them from becoming actual competitors? Absolutely. Have the recently leaked documents and testimony painted a picture of a company that's become far, far too large to even manage itself and happily and knowingly lets its platform do massive amounts of direct harm globally, including by acting as a platform to promote hate and organize ethnic cleansings without much of a check from Facebook (whose reporting admits that they only action 2-3% of rule breaking content)? You bet your ass.



Porque no los dos?

Because they have to much competition.
They could not even break up MS sitting at what 90% of the OS market +, 90% of the browser market at one point +, etc etc.
but they did get them on sanctions for anti- competitive actions, though they got off with a 'harsh talking too' instead of real actions.

[Rasulis]

what are they, because the main point of them being a monopoly is easily proven incorrect.

Anti competitive actions are a much better route for the govt to take and can even result in breaking up parts of the business because of it.

- - - Updated - - -



LOL imagine something really important goes down like VISA/Mastercard processing...



"dependent" is a hard word to wrap my head around. I guess if its the only platform you use as a small business, but really if you don't have business continuity / Business interruption insurance i don't know what to say.

I think that's the point. In many parts of the worlds, FB apps are more important than VISA/MC. A small shop owner in Istanbul that sells spicy marmalades and sauces probably could care less about VISA/MC. Come to think of it, lots of restaurants in San Francisco are cash only.

[Edge-]

Because they have to much competition.

Who? Outside of a company like Weibo which operates in China only, there's nobody remotely close to Facebook. For a quick comparison -

Facebook: Roughly 2.9 billion users
Twitter: Roughly 190 million users

There's literally nobody competing at-scale against Facebook, in large part because those potential competitors that could have reached similar numbers like Instgram were pre-emptively bought out before they could be actual competition.

They could not even break up MS sitting at what 90% of the OS market +, 90% of the browser market at one point +, etc etc.

Apples to Potatoes. And arguably, Microsoft isn't actively enabling and causing the scope and severity of the harm that Facebook is causing and enabling. Harm that they largely have pretty good data on the scope and severity of but have largely decided to ignore because it's more profitable to just turn a blind eye to to ethnic cleansing organized on your platform because getting local moderators and spending against it costs money.

[Machismo]

Who? Outside of a company like Weibo which operates in China only, there's nobody remotely close to Facebook. For a quick comparison -

Facebook: Roughly 2.9 billion users
Twitter: Roughly 190 million users

There's literally nobody competing at-scale against Facebook, in large part because those potential competitors that could have reached similar numbers like Instgram were pre-emptively bought out before they could be actual competition.



Apples to Potatoes. And arguably, Microsoft isn't actively enabling and causing the scope and severity of the harm that Facebook is causing and enabling. Harm that they largely have pretty good data on the scope and severity of but have largely decided to ignore because it's more profitable to just turn a blind eye to to ethnic cleansing organized on your platform because getting local moderators and spending against it costs money.

There's no competition, because people want to use the biggest site, that allows for the most possible exposure and contacts.

This is a direct result of people migrating from sites like MySpace, because "that's where everyone is."

[Rasulis]

My view of FB is more neutral than most. It is a tool. It can be used for good and it can be used for evil. Just like any other tools.

My niece would buy second hand clothes from Salvation Army and the likes, cleaned them up, assembled the pieces, modeled and sold them as ensemble on Instagram. She did that through high school. When she went to college, she had over 40k in her bank account. Beats working McDonald.

[Zan15]

Who? Outside of a company like Weibo which operates in China only, there's nobody remotely close to Facebook. For a quick comparison -

Facebook: Roughly 2.9 billion users
Twitter: Roughly 190 million users

There's literally nobody competing at-scale against Facebook, in large part because those potential competitors that could have reached similar numbers like Instgram were pre-emptively bought out before they could be actual competition.



Apples to Potatoes. And arguably, Microsoft isn't actively enabling and causing the scope and severity of the harm that Facebook is causing and enabling. Harm that they largely have pretty good data on the scope and severity of but have largely decided to ignore because it's more profitable to just turn a blind eye to to ethnic cleansing organized on your platform because getting local moderators and spending against it costs money.

Youtube is a direct competitor with 2.5b+....but we are talking about actions taken in the US so the 2.9 billion users is usless.

What are the numbers of Facebook, youtube, twitter et all in the united states?

The bigger problem would be their % of things like ad revenue and bookings. Their control over pricing. For which Facebook Inc. (facebook+all owned entities) is smaller than Google by a lot. This is what 95-98% of facebook's business/revenue.
So how can they be a monopoly when they are not even the biggest in 98% of their business? Because they have the most users, well shit that means nothing without taking into account what they do with those users and what their business actually is.

confusing their social media reach to the actual business of facebook has always been mistake #1 when they have tried to go after facebook.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no competition, because people want to use the biggest site, that allows for the most possible exposure and contacts.

This is a direct result of people migrating from sites like MySpace, because "that's where everyone is."

bull, see above. They are not even #1 in their business.

[uuuhname]

I wonder how much IPS's being open to taking any sort of bribe to give preferential bandwidth to certain websites has to do with this. at least in regards to events leading to this crash.

[Machismo]

Youtube is a direct competitor with 2.5b+....but we are talking about actions taken in the US so the 2.9 billion users is usless.

What are the numbers of Facebook, youtube, twitter et all in the united states?

The bigger problem would be their % of things like ad revenue and bookings. Their control over pricing. For which Facebook Inc. (facebook+all owned entities) is smaller than Google by a lot. This is what 95-98% of facebook's business/revenue.
So how can they be a monopoly when they are not even the biggest in 98% of their business? Because they have the most users, well shit that means nothing without taking into account what they do with those users and what their business actually is.

confusing their social media reach to the actual business of facebook has always been mistake #1 when they have tried to go after facebook.

- - - Updated - - -



bull, see above. They are not even #1 in their business.

They really are. They are not the biggest tech company, but they are the biggest social media company, especially with that model.

I should have been clear, they have competition, but there's none on their scale, and that's because this is a deliberate choice by consumers... to migrate to the biggest one. Their size is a feature, not a bug.

[szechuan]

Ben Shapiro under Trump: FACEBOOK IS LEFT WING AND TRYING TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH.

Ben Shapiro After Whistleblower: KEEP FACEBOOK AS IT IS.

[Machismo]

Ben Shapiro under Trump: FACEBOOK IS LEFT WING AND TRYING TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH.

Ben Shapiro After Whistleblower: KEEP FACEBOOK AS IT IS.

Is he really pulling that shit?

[Edge-]

Is he really pulling that shit?

Conservatives are overall. The sudden whiplash should be pretty familiar to them, they're used to abrupt reversals on their positions the second they think it will benefit them. They're going after the FB whistleblower because apparently Facebook is...good now? Weird considering they've spent years complaining about "censoring conservatives", but considering that's the primary way they spread their misinformation I think they're worried about an actual government crackdown.

[Logwyn]

Who? Outside of a company like Weibo which operates in China only, there's nobody remotely close to Facebook. For a quick comparison -

Facebook: Roughly 2.9 billion users
Twitter: Roughly 190 million users
There's literally nobody competing at-scale against Facebook, in large part because those potential competitors that could have reached similar numbers like Instgram were pre-emptively bought out before they could be actual competition.

You tube is up there in second but then you are right you could just add all the things Facebook owns.

[szechuan]

Is he really pulling that shit?

The right wing are now defending Facebook when the GOP and Trumpers have clearly claimed censorship in the past. For Years we have seen Donald Trump and the Trumpers claim this constantly with no proof.



https://republicans-judiciary.house....servatives.pdf

[Edge-]

You tube is up there in second but then you are right you could just add all the things Facebook owns.

YouTube isn't remotely the same in that it doesn't allow for similar levels of social networking. Sure you can share videos, but beyond that there's not much. Yes, it too is a vector for huge amounts of disinformation, but that's a separate problem from traditional social media, but the same problem in that these companies favor algorithms which make them money by pushing content that drives "engagement" which...is often extreme content. Also, that folks find out how to game their algorithms pretty easily so you have things like the multiple YouTube Kids scandals.

Big tech is in need of some big regulation that's bigly overdue.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't he know about Gab? Parler? Getr or whatever the "Trump platform" was? WHAT ABOUT THOSE?!

Also, I love that they're stanning hard for a company whose own internal documents showed that they knew about their platform being used for ethnic cleansing and violence, that they know about the direct harm it causes a great many users resulting from their intentional changes, but that they were unwilling to even attempt to address these issues because like, they might lose some money!

Truly, these clowns are Saturday morning cartoon villains, just without the colorful outfits or over the top evil cackle.

Edit: awww you snipped the "alternative media" post from him.

[Machismo]

Conservatives are overall. The sudden whiplash should be pretty familiar to them, they're used to abrupt reversals on their positions the second they think it will benefit them. They're going after the FB whistleblower because apparently Facebook is...good now? Weird considering they've spent years complaining about "censoring conservatives", but considering that's the primary way they spread their misinformation I think they're worried about an actual government crackdown.

I ask, because Shapiro was one of the earliest "platform versus publisher" narrative pushers.

I have no doubt he's a giant fucking hypocrite, but hasn't seen if he had flopped on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

The right wing are now defending Facebook when the GOP and Trumpers have clearly claimed censorship in the past. For Years we have seen Donald Trump and the Trumpers claim this constantly with no proof.



https://republicans-judiciary.house....servatives.pdf

So yeah... he's a huge fucking hypocrite. Just like he is with immigration, religion, and marriage.

[Ursus]

The right wing are now defending Facebook when the GOP and Trumpers have clearly claimed censorship in the past. For Years we have seen Donald Trump and the Trumpers claim this constantly with no proof.



https://republicans-judiciary.house....servatives.pdf

I think it's hilarious that the whistleblower came out and said how Facebook is not doing anything about misinformation, and conservatives everywhere take that as an attack on them, basically admitting they are the biggest pushers and consumers of misinformation.

[Zan15]

They really are. They are not the biggest tech company, but they are the biggest social media company, especially with that model.

I should have been clear, they have competition, but there's none on their scale, and that's because this is a deliberate choice by consumers... to migrate to the biggest one. Their size is a feature, not a bug.

Again they are not the biggest by the most important factor, revenue in that industry.

You are confusing users vs control of market. Users do not = monopoly.

Its 98% internet advertising and google not only has them beat but has the same or better growth %.

On top of that Youtube is social media and is a very close second in total # of users.

So they have competition on the same scale.

Now it might be a duopoly, but again you'd have to prove somehow they are in collusion with each other for which i believe they "hate" each other on a corporate level.

- - - Updated - - -

You tube is up there in second but then you are right you could just add all the things Facebook owns.

Yah but then you would have to look at crossover users and it wouldn't necessarily increase their counts by all that much unless they own something serious in china.

do they?


Again you can have 3 billion users but if you only have 28% of the market revenue its hard to call you a monopoly.

- - - Updated - - -

YouTube isn't remotely the same in that it doesn't allow for similar levels of social networking. Sure you can share videos, but beyond that there's not much. Yes, it too is a vector for huge amounts of disinformation, but that's a separate problem from traditional social media, but the same problem in that these companies favor algorithms which make them money by pushing content that drives "engagement" which...is often extreme content. Also, that folks find out how to game their algorithms pretty easily so you have things like the multiple YouTube Kids scandals.

Big tech is in need of some big regulation that's bigly overdue.
.

Its not the same but its still social media and still a huge competitor for advertising dollars and data mining sales.

[Machismo]

Again they are not the biggest by the most important factor, revenue in that industry.

You are confusing users vs control of market. Users do not = monopoly.

Its 98% internet advertising and google not only has them beat but has the same or better growth %.

On top of that Youtube is social media and is a very close second in total # of users.

So they have competition on the same scale.

Now it might be a duopoly, but again you'd have to prove somehow they are in collusion with each other for which i believe they "hate" each other on a corporate level.

- - - Updated - - -



Yah but then you would have to look at crossover users and it wouldn't necessarily increase their counts by all that much unless they own something serious in china.

do they?


Again you can have 3 billion users but if you only have 28% of the market revenue its hard to call you a monopoly.

- - - Updated - - -



Its not the same but its still social media and still a huge competitor for advertising dollars and data mining sales.

But, this is about the product they offer, as well

They are not a monopoly in either regard, but Facebook is the biggest in their market.

[Zan15]

But, this is about the product they offer, as well

They are not a monopoly in either regard, but Facebook is the biggest in their market.

Again they are not the biggest in their main market, Internet advertising.

Revenue made from internet advertising 98%....how is this not "their market".


How they get there and make that money through social media users is almost irrelevant since google does the same thing across all their products.