Most threads are full of commenters attacking whatever for unrelated things.

Please don't insinuate astroturfing without evidence; this is in the site guidelines because it's so common, off-topic, and undermining of community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I didn't claim astroturfing and frankly I don't think that is quite what is occurring. And FWIW, it seems like the general tone of the comments has changed substantially since I posted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I believe you. It's just that vague references like "strikes me as odd" usually amount to that when it comes to seeming patterns of comments in threads.

> could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?

I we go by the pattern of behavior at Facebook, it really doesn't seem like the decision makers consider much in the way of anti-trust or much of anything.

The pattern is well established and their version of move fast and break things is almost entirely off the rails.

And if we look at the pattern of behavior at the Department of Justice, the pattern of behavior at Facebook seems (at least at this moment) to be perfectly rational.

Most industries can engage in anticompetitive behaviors with impunity. But I think if Facebook watches which way the political winds are blowing for them, they would be more careful.

Yes, rational + unethical = current status quo.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I took GP to mean that the DoJ hasn't been enforcing antitrust laws the way they used to, so the rational action for selfish companies to take is to break those unenforced laws.

Wow, they said they might revoke one's verified status if they linked to SC? I wish "verified" just meant "this account with identity X has been verified to be managed by person with identity X," instead of, "this account with identity X has been verified (or deemed, by us) to be a popular (or even, preferred) person."

I mean, I understand that verification of one's identity may not be that simple to do technologically, and yet, it seems more and more like they're not even trying to help bring more humanity to their platforms.

IMO, it's because Evan Spiegel and Snap by extension is just as cutthroat and unlikable as Mark Zuckerburg and based on what I've read about it I feel like he would be doing the exact same things as FB is if the roles we reversed.

This doesn't feel like some altruistic, whistle-blowing gesture for the good of the consumer. This feels like Snap being pissy that there is a bigger bully on the playground.

I'm not saying what Facebook is doing is okay, because it's not, but Snap has a vested interest in FBs demise and Spiegel and Zuckerburg have their own pissing match. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for either company in this issue.

You don't necessarily need sympathy to see what's right and wrong.

Assuming FB gave any thought to antitrust action -- which is unlikely the prevailing doctrine that businesses can do as they like as long as they don't charge customers too much -- I think they ran some risk analysis and reached the conclusion that in a worst-case scenario they might take a hit to revenue and have to throw a VP or two under the bus, but would otherwise be able to continue with business as usual.

The DOJ antitrust people and the FTC got a lot of their teeth knocked out when they went after Microsoft in the 1990s. However, you think conservatives would be more open to the possibility of using antitrust as a cudgel against social media companies that seem intolerant toward right-wing viewpoints. (Never mind that the end of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine helped enable the rise of right-wing media in the first place.)

> The DOJ antitrust people and the FTC got a lot of their teeth knocked out when they went after Microsoft in the 1990s.

How do you mean? Microsoft got throughly declawed in the 90s, and never regained their top predator status.

I think Microsoft got off relatively easily compared to AT&T and Standard Oil, but I was in the camp hoping they'd be forcibly partitioned so that the applications business was separate from the OS business, both of which were separate from Microsoft's hardware operations (which consisted mainly of peripherals, because they hadn't gotten into the game console business yet).

For all we know Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon would all be much more powerful if Microsoft got split up. And maybe throw in a few other companies like Oracle.

I was too.

But at least all their scuzzy business practices were put to light, and they weren't able to behave that way anymore.

> However, you think conservatives would be more open to the possibility of using antitrust as a cudgel against social media companies that seem intolerant toward right-wing viewpoints.

No, most of us actually welcome diversity of thought, and free expression of opposing ideas. Typically we don't want Big Brother to tell us, or anyone else what to do or how to do it.

Big Brother is just some guys or gals; like the crew that hung out in the parking lot at the mall, and after all--who the fuck are they anyway to tell us what to do, or how to do it??

This is definitely not-nice behavior but is common. On an iOS App Store listing you can't even say the word Android, etc.

Ah yes, the iOS App Store that just lost a Supreme Court anti-trust case

Are you saying that it's OK because it's common, or that the DOJ should be doing even more than it is? Or something else?

Did you check this before you wrote this comment ?

Because there are apps called Android Remote, Android TV, Google formerly had a an Android Wear app and plenty of Remote Desktop apps that mention Android.

When I last published an app it was cross-platform and I was denied for having "sync with the Android version and the Chrome extension" in my listing even though that was one of the main value props for my app.

Its much simpler than that. Decision making at a big company is layered. Anti-trust considerations is about as C-suite a concern as I can possibly think about. Operational leadership even VP is singing for their supper on a project by project basis (to gain status and move up the company ladder). So you get these things.

It's almost certainly a reflection of a culture who's motto was/maybe still is "move fast and break stuff." I think the idea of existential consequences for actions is relatively new one for FB (and to a lesser extent Google) and your seeing a company not move fast enough and a CEO who is probably a little bit underarmed when it comes to really understanding the stakes of certain types of public perception.

That's a lot of HN though, you'll see people talk about tangentially related things to the main topic, and never address the linked topic.

I've learned to accept it as is, and not to worry about it too much.

Some news.ycombinator readers may actually work for Facebook, and have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this matter.

It sounds like a conspiracy, but it's possible. You know the old saying about "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

Not just employees, there's basically financial incentives for anyone who holds facebook stock.

Speculating about sock puppets is not only not interesting, it’s against the guidelines. If there’s a post you want to make a substantive argument against, please reply to it directly.

I don't think he's suggesting sock puppets as much as employees using their personal accounts, which I don't think is the same.

They probably anticipated it to the penny.