Read on Twitter
Ok, I've read the FTC complaint against Facebook and have a few initial thoughts. A quick thread. https://twitter.com/ceciliakang/status/1336759957711097862
At first, I was like "Wow, this court filing is so well written and the grammar is tight and it's filed in the right court!"
And then I realized I've been reading too many Trump team election appeals so my standards might be low.
And then I realized I've been reading too many Trump team election appeals so my standards might be low.
Ok, now onto the things that jumped out to me. I already noted the slight oddity of a 3-2 vote with no published dissents: https://twitter.com/neil_chilson/status/1336768899975680000?s=20
As @jeffreywestling and @corbinkbarthold have noted, market def is gerrymandered. A key tension in the complaint: the repeated claim that FB was threated by adjacent networks that could become Personal Social Networks. Yet the market definition excludes such companies. Compare:
The below, which is trying to avoid Amex, seems incorrect. It's not just about quantity of ads - quality, as perceived by the user, matters, too. Network effects improve targeting, which improves quality. More advertisers <--> more niche advertisers <--> better targeted ads.
I want someone to explain to me how this isn't the "essential facilities doctrine" aka if you make something really useful you have to share it with your competitors.
You can't BOTH believe that
"if you're not paying for the product, you are the product,"
AND
The FTC's market definition in its case against Facebook makes sense.
simpsons_choose_one.gif
"if you're not paying for the product, you are the product,"
AND
The FTC's market definition in its case against Facebook makes sense.
simpsons_choose_one.gif
Ok, those are quick takes. Have to go pick up my daughter, so thoughtful stuff will have to wait.
