News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by ryanwaggoner on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @12:56PM (#18610677)
I definitely see those arguments being made (in this thread, in fact), but that may not be the argument you're making.

I think the issue I have is with the idea that Facebook is successful, and therefore can no longer prevent their competitors from blatantly taking advantage of them. But I'm not sure where to draw the line.

If Visa and Mastercard decided for whatever reason that they wanted to kill some small banking chain and not allow payments for them or their customers to go through their network, that would be bad. But I don't think that means that they have to let an upstart competitor credit card startup have access to the huge multi-billion-dollar network they've built up, does it? Even if they might extend that network to other entities that don't compete with them?

Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by notahacker on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @01:10PM (#18610819)
I'd be pretty concerned if Visa introduced a Visa Mobile Payments platform and withdrew functionality from the fastest growing payment apps because the mobile payments sector broadly competes with the credit card sector. I think that's a closer analogy than either of your examples
Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by ryanwaggoner on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @01:20PM (#18610924)
Well, that'd be the only use case for that platform, right? Maybe a better example would be if they explicitly told companies who joined the platform that they couldn't compete with Visa's core business, and then Mastercard signed up because they have a mobile payments division. Would Visa be justified in kicking them off?