Hacker News Reader

Comment by uptown | Hacker News Reader

At this stage, regulation seems like it may help Facebook more than it'd hurt. Regulations that restrict the very behaviors that allowed Facebook to grow to its dominance might make it more difficult for startups to ever challenge them in a meaningful way.

View on HN

I'm not convinced that meaningful regulation in the areas of concern would make it that hard for up and coming competition. Sure, the free-for-all exploitation would no longer be available, but that's not necessarily a startup killer. However, with giants like Google and Facebook in place there's a huge risk of regulatory capture[1] specifically aimed at inhibiting new competition.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

I agree with this, but the other thing to consider is whether Facebook's revenue is dependent on the things that are being restricted.

We were having a discussion about this at work and figure it's worth pointing out any potential regulation will affect the industry as a whole. That's obvious of course but I get the feeling some of those who are pro-regulatory forget there's more than just Facebook that would be affected.

This now common argument doesn’t hold water. What if regulation restricted one social network per holding corporation? If Facebook was to lose Instagram and WhatsApp it would be a huge blow to the company, while also promoting a competitive business environment where major social networks can’t simply buy the competition out of existence.

What you’re suggesting sounds more along the lines of antitrust and seems unlikely (though sounds great to me). I think that regulation around data security would be more likely and is what most people are suggesting. Whether this type regulation could be written competently in the US is my concern.

That's my thinking as well. Regulations help the incumbent, not the up-and-coming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com