Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

In America we have a concept known as “the rule of law”. An independent judiciary prevents mob justice from simply seizing wealth from people and private entities. We even prevent the government from doing so (at least theoretically).

To see a counter-example, look at China. Their system is completely opaque and politicians can easily stymie even the strongest business entities. The judiciary is not independent but subject to the latest dictator’s whims.

If you are reading this and live in a Western country, feel appreciative that simple solutions are not applied quickly to complex problems.

View on HN

> In America we have a concept known as “the rule of law”.

We do. And in America, that set of laws includes things like "Thou Shalt Not Buy Up All Thine Competitors Into One Giant Monopoly."

Unfortunately, the groups in charge of enforcing those laws have been asleep at the wheel for the last 20 years or so. Were they working, Facebook wouldn't have reasonably been allowed to buy up nearly as many successful competitors as they've been allowed to, and wouldn't have nearly the stranglehold on "social" that they do.

Same goes for Google and Amazon as well - I don't pick on Facebook alone here, except for the fact that they're the topic of discussion in this thread.

> “The FTC’s Complaint says almost nothing concrete on the key question of how much power Facebook actually had, and still has, in a properly defined antitrust product market,” the filing reads. “It is almost as if the agency expects the Court to simply nod to the conventional wisdom that Facebook is a monopolist.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/28/judge-dismisses-ftc-antitrus...

You claim that FB is a monopoly, but the courts made a dispassionate, reasoned analysis and disagreed strongly. This is what an independent judiciary looks like.

I agree with the courts, speaking as someone that hasn't used FB in almost a decade (never used IG, might use whatsapp every couple of months) and same with twitter.

It's just nonsense to me because people have convinced themselves they can't live without them… addicted to their centralized social media skinner boxes to the degree they are no longer capable of rational thoughts on such subjects.

The fact that people can choose not to use a product has nothing to do with whether it is a monopoly or not.

Agreed, and there are plenty of alternatives that people can and do use to send garbage to one another that arent fb and its centralized brethren.

The criteria is not monopoly or not.

Bork argued regulators should only consider benefit to the customer. Who is Facebook's customer? Did they benefit?

Before, and now after, Bork the criteria included anticompetitive behavior. In that regard, Facebook's actions would make Microsoft blush.

> In America we have a concept known as “the rule of law”.

Paid for by corporations who spend lots of money lobbying the government.

I guess I get part of your point, but let me also joke a little:

> To see a counter-example, look at China. Their system is completely opaque and politicians can easily stymie even the strongest business entities. The judiciary is not independent but subject to the latest dictator’s whims.

To see a counter-example, look at America. Their system is completely opaque and corporations can easily stymie even the strongest of political entities. The legislative is not independent but subject to the latest corporation's whims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com