this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
717 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

69156 readers
3676 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, and/or that they raised prices or reduced quality because they knew they didn't have to fear competitors.

It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it. What am I, a mind-reader? But imagine for a second that the corporation in the dock is a global multinational. Now, imagine that the majority of the voting shares in that company are held by one man, who has served as the company's CEO since the day he founded it, personally calling every important shot in the company's history.

Now imagine that this founder/CEO, this accused monopolist, was an incorrigible blabbermouth, who communicated with his underlings almost exclusively in writing, and thus did he commit to immortal digital storage a stream – a torrent – of memos in which he explicitly confessed his guilt.

Ladies and gentlepersons, I give you Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (nee Facebook), an accused monopolist who cannot keep his big dumb fucking mouth shut.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Wait....I haven't been following the story. Why is him buying Instagram a bad thing legally?

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 86 points 4 days ago

Buying your competitors is a pretty monopolistic practice

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 81 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You can’t buy a company with the intent to stifle competition.

They tried to compete with insta and failed, and he was concerned with insta’s potential to create features that compete with fb.

He then said the plan was to invest as little as possible in insta and only add features if competition sprouted up.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Other than the fact that it happens all the time and nothing happens because, as OP mentioned, most people aren't dumb enough to put it in writing

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 3 days ago

If you buy all the competition, you can set the price/rules.