I don't think there's any exception in the antitrust laws like "but you can be anti-competitive if the other guy did it first." And anti-competitive behavior in a Chinese company can hardly justify anti-competitiveness against a Japanese company or a Korean company. They may all be in Asia but they are nonetheless different countries. Google is also not a Chinese company, as you are probably aware.

Also a note: you don't have to be a monopoly to be charged with anti-competitive behavior. Being a monopoly can raise the standard of behavior and increase the penalties, but anti-competitive behavior can be illegal on its own, aside from whether you have an actual monopoly. For more you can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

I hold "our" companies to a higher standard. I hope judges do as well.

I think its referring to legality not standards. what law is FB breaking?

I can’t believe this needs saying, but neither Japan or South Korea is China.

> I doubt there's any legal case for FB abusing monopoly powers based on this email. If anything, this is just very competent business decision making.

Facebook does business in Japan and South Korea. I’m sure they have to follow the laws of both countries.

Is there some reason you think they would not do this to a US company?

> "...And I agree we should use ads to promote our own products, but I'd still block companies that compete with our core from gaining any advantage from us. I'd also keep blockingGoogle but otherwise wouldn't extend the block to anyone else."

> "These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all foreign (China, South Korea, Japan)."

> Explicitly mentions Google.

> Google has a bigger ad network than Facebook so how is that a monopoly?

Do you find this statement anti-competitive: "I'd still block companies that compete with our core"?

Secondly, they don't really have a monopoly from my perspective. I don't know many people that use Facebook-the-product for its intended purpose, that is, social networking instead of selling household items or organising ride sharing. And I don't know anyone who uses Instagram (except for one girl on the bus who looks down only enough to make sure she's tapping the post and not some other button on her screen, but otherwise only likes every post without even glancing at it). I guess that might be different in other countries.

I guess I also saw it differently because it feels like a free speech argument: why does FB have to give competitors a voice? But it's not about having to give someone a voice because they claim it should be a free (as in freedom) platform, it's for maintaining competition.

I think I've changed my mind. As you see I'm still thinking this through (out loud) but I suppose it should indeed be different entities, even if the to-be-separated ad business is selling "real estate" on Facebook.

Disney banned Netflix ads on its streaming service. How is that not the same thing? The monopoly argument crumbles when you realise how big Disney is compared to Netflix.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/disney-to-ban-netflix-ads-fr...

Not organised by small businesses, it has nothing to do with any company. Just some dude(s) (or gal(s)) that run(s) a group called "ride shares between Cologne and Koblenz" where people post when they'll be driving, or "fleamarket Cologne" where people post their stuff (not sure how this isn't just a bad/limited replacement for ebay, but that's what I see Facebook being used for).

As for replacements for the other parts of Facebook/Instagram, I don't know because I didn't switch away from using Facebook or Instagram: I've never used it. If you mention what you use it for, I can tell you how I achieve those goals instead. If it's keeping up with people, it's by meeting and chatting. Or if they don't have chat, then email and meeting. Or if you mean how to share pictures, I guess that would again be email or chat.

Of course, I'm fine with doing something about Facebook (I don't mean to turn this into a whataboutism), but to me this is not the biggest abuser of power at the moment. Google knows practically every aspect of practically everyone's life over here, which is way scarier than Facebook knowing with whom I talk.

I suspect Netflix can run its ads on other TV channels (and if they can't/aren't allowed that's a problem in itself).

As far as I can tell Facebook is the only place in town when it comes to social networks in the Western world, and it's a pretty big town, so to speak. As such, FB not letting a company like Google to advertise its services on this "only place in town" proves that either the town needs expanding (quite a difficult thing to do, as pretty much the whole current "town" population is pretty saturated with these FB-only products) or the "place" needs breaking up, i.e. Facebook needs to be split into different social networks.

Why not take the money and seem like a good sport while you’re at it?

A company like Facebook can regulate the market.

That's when it becomes a problem.

... but it won't. Never has, never will. 'Regulation' serves a larger context, and the market does not value externalities.

The concept that capitalism works best if it's free from any/all regulation could work with a very strong shared societal moral fabric.

Sadly, Western culture accepts and even promotes greed and selfishness over the common good.

Almost no-one bellow the age of 40 cares about TV anymore (apart from sports events), you're pretty off on this one.

Even more, TV networks are just an example and it is fricken obvious that Facebook doesn't have an advertising monopoly in the US or world-wide.

Hoo boy. I agree it totally should. Been waiting for a while on that one though...

It´s equivalent to saying, the Internet should regulate itself, and there is no need for any kind of security to protect against exploits.

That said, google is in a different business. Their ranking should be fair (aside for their paid rankings). In this case they should not be favoring themselves over others, that’s to say they should not artificially bury competitors in the fair ranking.

Usually companies get split up so they cant use their dominance in one area to forcibly move into another area. But advertisements in facebook social network isnt a separate product-its what the social network is selling

We can start by separating FB into at least two (preferably three) different social networks. I'd be pleased to see IG becoming an independent, separate company, and at some point after that maybe the same thing could happen for Whatsapp. If there is the political will this thing is doable, but this is a pretty big "if", I agree.

The same way it works for millions of other companies that aren't Facebook?