
New Google and Facebook Inquiries - granzymes
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/technology/attorney-generals-tech-antitrust-investigation.html
======
mogadsheu
>Facebook’s “program of serial defensive acquisitions” was used to maintain
the company’s dominance in the social networking industry.

Instagram could be considered a defensive acquisition. They should argue that
the motive behind the acquisition was to expand their presence into
mobile/imagery, which is different than defending social networking.

Whatsapp I have a tough time seeing as anti-competitive, since it's a
messaging platform rather than a social network, and one amongst many.

The playbook is pretty clear for them: argue that they are in the digital
advertising space, which is highly competitive, and argue that social
networking itself is also competitive, with Snapchat, VSCO, Tinder and others
as their competitors.

~~~
Despegar
>Instagram could be considered a defensive acquisition. They should argue that
the motive behind the acquisition was to expand their presence into
mobile/imagery, which is different than defending social networking.

I mean there's going to be discovery and depositions so "arguing" an after-
the-fact justification is kind of pointless.

Also New York Post already reported that the FTC had documents suggesting the
Instagram purchase was to take out a competitor.

>At the center of arguments to block the deal — made by then-FTC Chairman Jon
Leibowitz — was a document the FTC had uncovered by a high-ranking Facebook
executive who said the reason the company was buying Instagram was to
eliminate a potential competitor, sources said.

“It was a spectacular document,” one source close to the situation said,
declining to say whether Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself had written it.

[https://nypost.com/2019/02/26/facebook-boasted-of-buying-
ins...](https://nypost.com/2019/02/26/facebook-boasted-of-buying-instagram-to-
kill-the-competition-sources/)

~~~
mogadsheu
Nice, what do you think of Whatsapp?

~~~
Despegar
This isn't even a question to me: it's obvious it was to take out competition
in social networking. Facebook has network effects but their organic attempts
at starting new apps constantly fail. Acquiring the ones that take off is the
only avenue left.

There's no other reason to spend $19B for a company with little to no revenue
(and like 3 employees?).

~~~
Lammy
Starting new apps aren’t the only initiatives that fail. Whatsapp was the
target to meet or beat for every single speed and reliability metric during
the development cycle of Messenger 3.0 (2013).

------
joelx
I hate this ongoing PR attack on Google now being joined by politically
ambitious state AG's. Google has done more positive things than any other
company over the last twenty years. Instead of targeting bad companies that
destroy people's lives (think gambling or alcohol or junk food), they are
trying to destroy the company that gave us free search, maps, and email.

------
crb002
They should sue under RICO. Smells of the Big Tobacco shakedown orchestrated
by Iowa's dirty AG Thomas Miller.

~~~
popmatrix
RICO is very hard to prove[1] and usually not applicable outside of what most
people would undoubtedly agree is organized crime (i.e.a mafia family)

[1] [https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-
rico-...](https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/)

------
mlindner
If the wrong regulations are picked all it will do is entrench
Google/Facebook/et al. Regulations are usually pushed by the largest of the
companies in an industry as it stifles new companies from starting as large
companies are much better at bearing the cost of regulation. Hopefully the
regulators are smart about this.

~~~
Despegar
Antitrust isn't regulation

