Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgotusername | Hacker News Reader

I'm almost surprised the number is so low, given how difficult it is to log into a Google Account and even run a web search without accidentally stumbling onto one of the prolific set of lead-ins it has now.

View on HN

This will most likely continue to happen in the form of tighter integrations, continually boosting the engagement number, until an antitrust lawsuit causes G+ to split off into it's own company. I suppose the bet is that by then, there will be enough momentum for network effects to take care of the rest. Like Google+ or not, it's a pretty nifty, calculated strategy.

Mere integration isn't sufficient to justify an antitrust action. There needs to be a trust (monopoly) involved somewhere. There is, of course, and right now that monopoly is named "Facebook". Things would have to change radically for antitrust regulators to become interested.

Facebook may be on the social front...but if you look at it from a different angle, the fact that data is being collected on all fronts, from search, email, video, social and DNS, Google is the single monopoly.

That's semantic creep. The grandparent post was about antitrust law. Antitrust interprets a "monopoly" in the market sense. It's true that you can attach other meanings to the word and gain new insights from interesting discussion, but that has no bearing on the ability of the DoJ to bring antitrust suits against google.

A monopoly is defined as a seller with no competitors (in their market). Facebook would be a monopoly if its user were _forced_ to log in to facebook, use its software, or give it money.

Ergo facebook is not a monopoly.

It's ironic that I would have to define monopoly here - I personally have a great deal of distaste for facebook's actions. In my opinion they engage in highly deceptive business practices. Their users are unaware of the damage to their privacy stemming from facebook's actions.

But unethical or distasteful practices do not imply a monopoly. Google does not have a monopoly either - if you prefer not to use their services, use Bing or Baidu or DuckDuckGo ...

I understand that facebook and google embed javascript on other pages. So download the requestpolicy firefox addon. Or disable javascript. And cookies. I think you can see my point: you, the customer, can spend your money and your bandwidth (= money) other places if you prefer.

> Facebook would be a monopoly if its user were _forced_ to log in to facebook, use its software, or give it money.

That's not what a monopoly is. By that definition, no company has ever been a monopoly.

Microsoft is a clear monopoly.

Many people and businesses have no choice but to use Windows. It's nearly impossible to buy a computer without Windows, especially if you're picky about configurations. Even if the choice exists (Apple), switching involves considerable costs: buying all new hardware, moving to different application software, retraining personel, dealing will legacy and proprietary file formats.

In contrast, moving to a different search engine is easy and free. There are no barriers to switch.

Whether you agree or disagree, if you have something constructive to add, why not comment?

Downmodding us adds almost nothing to the discussion.

Facebook may not be a monopoly, but on the other hand, that's not a necessary condition for antitrust laws to kick in. A dominant position on the market is enough.

Google search has about 1 billion visitors per month. Turning 9% of them into Google+ users in 6 months is not too bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com