Hacker News Reader

Comment by awb | Hacker News Reader

> I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values.

> One way to address this is through regulation.

> I've called for new regulation in these areas and over the next decade I hope we get clearer rules for the internet.

Surprising to hear a near-monopoly call for regulation.

> Another and perhaps even better way to address this is by establishing new ways for communities to govern themselves. An example of independent governance is the Oversight Board we're creating.

Oh I see, self-regulation is the answer.

View on HN

> Surprising to hear a near-monopoly advocate for regulation.

Not really. When a company reaches a certain level of dominance, government regulation is a good thing because it increases the cost of entry to the market, so it acts as a kind of moat for the established players.

Especially if they can get any of the rules to be as byzantine as their current internal processes.

It would be harder for a fledgling competitor to comply with an increased regulatory burden than it would be for Facebook. This is especially likely given that Facebook would be influencing the regulation. That is one incentive for Zuckerberg to advocate for regulation even though he runs a monopolistic firm.

Absolutely. Regulation for Zuckerberg, written by Zuckerberg's counsel, with loopholes accommodating Zuckerberg, and penalties that would be a mere cost-of-doing-business if raised for Zuckerberg.

The US government needs dramatically less influence from moneyed lobbyists and tech powerhouses, not more. God help us if it goes the opposite direction. It would make the utter scandal that was the US government granting immunity to the telecom companies for facilitating widespread surveillance by the US government look like a child's game.

> Surprising to hear a near-monopoly call for regulation.

Regulation can often mean a higher bar to entry for competitors. Compliance costs time/money and Facebook has plenty.

Is there even an example of regulations decreasing the cost of entry?

There are regulations that establish ground rules, that encode best practices into law, which means contracts and conflict resolution becomes more well defined and much easier for all parties, which decreases cost of entry.

Look up Joel Kaplan. Mark doesn’t give a shit about regulation unless it is to his benefit.

Not to be confrontational, but what is Facebook’s monopoly? I don’t use it or any of their other products and I’m not missing anything. We could say monopoly of social, but then there is Twitter et al, for messaging, I have iMessage and email, for photos, I can email or iMessage them. For online advertising, there is Google and others, for offline ads, there is print and TV. I’m not getting what Facebook’s monopoly is..

The monopoly is the social advertising platform.

Analysis of whether a company is a monopoly should involve things other than market domination, for example anticompetitive behavior like buying all competitors. Even if you feel you have a choice as a consumer, the analysis of whether Facebook or any company has an economically detrimental monopoly should include their actions to stifle competition and achieve pricing power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com