Would McDonald's (afaik by far the largest of its kind) have to advertise for its competitors on request? It seems weird to me.

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.

McDonald's isn't running an ad agency alongside its main business. Ads are not a product that they sell to the public. Facebook sells ads to the public, but not to their competitors. This is almost certainly illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

Hmm, I guess I see what you mean. To me the ads feel like an integral part of it, like the cash/card registers in a McDonald's, but when you point it out I see it can be a separate component. I suppose it would be like McDonald's manufacturing their own registers and refusing to sell them to competitors. There are a lot of register manufacturers, and a lot of other ad platforms, but indeed on other ad platforms you don't reach the Facebook users that you want to reach, so perhaps there isn't really any other option than to run Facebook ads.

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.

McDonalds does actually do sponsored ad deals on its meals, with tie ins to major brands. If I remember right it is legal for e.g. CBS to not run ads for ABC programs.

It's been a long time since I've watched network TV, but I can't recall EVER seeing ads for a TV show on a competitor's network.

Hrmmm - well, I remember seeing HBO ads on all the networks. But your basic point is valid.

Did people forget the most recent case of this? "Disney bans Netflix ads from all of its TV channels except ESPN". [0]

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...

I would say the majority of users of FB and IG are for social media. That’s why small business use them for ‘selling household items or organizing ride sharing’. I personally cannot think of another social media app as dominant as FB(including IG). If you happen to know one pls let me know.

> That’s why small business use them for ‘selling household items or organizing ride sharing’

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.

It's much better than ebay because no one has to pay the 10% fee. The transaction is direct between the buyer and the seller.

was there a big case that FB was a monopoly in 2013? Even in 2019 it's very murky

Personally I would say Google is a much bigger problem. Where I manage to stay away from Facebook (yes, WhatsApp and Instagram and whatever else they may have as well), Google is something I absolutely cannot get around: AOSP, YouTube's monopoly on online videos, Search is very good for many types of queries, google-hosted email (I can hardly choose not to email companies that use it), and of course Google's terms of service on every website that uses Analytics or Ads or embedded YT or an embedded Google map (most of the time: all of the above). I will even admit to using Google Maps because owners can't be bothered to put their businesses on the collaborative OpenStreetMap. By comparison, Facebook has a Like® button (not hard to block), bundles some stuff with other features in the Android SDK (not sure how big a deal that is), and other people sharing their contact list (so Facebook knows with whom I talk, just not how frequently or what about).

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.