Adam Mosseri, Head of Instagram, returned to court on Day 16 of the FTC v. Meta antitrust trial, and we heard more from Meta marketing head Alex Schultz.
Good point that the FTC hasn't seemed that focused on anticompetitive effects. Although maybe they will claim that the hamstringing of Instagram was an anticompetitive effect. I think they're focusing more on market definition because Chief Judge Boasberg's summary judgment ruling in substance said that a monopolist's acquisition of potential competitors is itself anticompetitive, without the need to show more.
LaFleur specifically isn't a witness. And companies that buy advertising don't seem to be witnesses because the FTC has focused on the consumer side of the market, rather than on the advertising side. See this debate about that by economists here: https://x.com/salopecon/status/1921716608034099707
Only partly through and two items caught my eye. Here is a quote from Mosseri that I think proves my earlier point—that Meta mines its research to find more and better ways to influence user behavior: “The number one reason that people say that they use Instagram in research is to be entertained. So people are looking to us for that. So actually, this past week in our internal all hands, we shared, or I shared, a lot about what we’re trying to do to lean into that trend — into entertainment and into video…”
I don’t know what Stratechery is, but I would characterize much of what we have learned about social media in general and here, Meta in particular as Stratreachery.
Yes, I don't disagree that Meta uses data from users' behavior. Schultz has said things to that effect. Was just trying to be accurate earlier on Cobb's survey team, which sounded like it does more custom surveys rather than using data from users.
Stratechery is a tech industry blog. Mosseri called its author one of the most respected tech columnists at trial after there was an objection to introducing the column's transcription of Mosseri's post. Think it's a play on words from Will Ferrell's SNL George W. Bush impression, which had the mock Bushism, "strategery."
I am struggling to understand how the market definition is going to be be decided.
Do any of these executives know why their users are using their product?
These executives are struggling over the definition of their own products in internal communications.
When an executive says X competes with Y they are not specifying what/how or for what are they competing.
It seems the executives are talking about time spent.
I thought the Judge stated "time spent" does not matter as much here as that would open up the market definition to all sorts of non-related things we do online including playing videogames.
I am confused. I find myself going in circles trying to understand how the market definition is going to be be decided.
One last note: All this executive testimony seems after the lawsuit began. This FTC lawsuit was started in 2020 and long before that Meta knew it might be taken to court over antitrust. The Adam Mosseri interview was in 2021 and by 2021 everyone at Meta knew what they had to say in public and over email regarding these antitrust issues. So does it really matter what Adam Mosseri told Stratechery in 2021 ?
All these tech companies have told their employees what to say regarding antitrust.
number 1. dont talk about it.
number 2. if you talk about it make sure to say we have lots of competition.
Good points. I agree that Meta is spending a lot of time so far establishing that TikTok and Meta's apps compete for "time and attention," which probably isn't the narrowest market and so ultimately doesn't matter. And I agree that the Court will probably view the post-2020 evidence with more skepticism for the reason you suggest. Meta's witnesses have had some serious credibility issues trying to walk away from words they wrote.
Does the FTC plan to call witnesses, such as LaFleur, who can speak to the anti-competetitive impact vs the laser-focus on market definition?
Good point that the FTC hasn't seemed that focused on anticompetitive effects. Although maybe they will claim that the hamstringing of Instagram was an anticompetitive effect. I think they're focusing more on market definition because Chief Judge Boasberg's summary judgment ruling in substance said that a monopolist's acquisition of potential competitors is itself anticompetitive, without the need to show more.
LaFleur specifically isn't a witness. And companies that buy advertising don't seem to be witnesses because the FTC has focused on the consumer side of the market, rather than on the advertising side. See this debate about that by economists here: https://x.com/salopecon/status/1921716608034099707
Only partly through and two items caught my eye. Here is a quote from Mosseri that I think proves my earlier point—that Meta mines its research to find more and better ways to influence user behavior: “The number one reason that people say that they use Instagram in research is to be entertained. So people are looking to us for that. So actually, this past week in our internal all hands, we shared, or I shared, a lot about what we’re trying to do to lean into that trend — into entertainment and into video…”
I don’t know what Stratechery is, but I would characterize much of what we have learned about social media in general and here, Meta in particular as Stratreachery.
Yes, I don't disagree that Meta uses data from users' behavior. Schultz has said things to that effect. Was just trying to be accurate earlier on Cobb's survey team, which sounded like it does more custom surveys rather than using data from users.
Stratechery is a tech industry blog. Mosseri called its author one of the most respected tech columnists at trial after there was an objection to introducing the column's transcription of Mosseri's post. Think it's a play on words from Will Ferrell's SNL George W. Bush impression, which had the mock Bushism, "strategery."
My word is a play on that play on words. Would you say, a double play?
I am struggling to understand how the market definition is going to be be decided.
Do any of these executives know why their users are using their product?
These executives are struggling over the definition of their own products in internal communications.
When an executive says X competes with Y they are not specifying what/how or for what are they competing.
It seems the executives are talking about time spent.
I thought the Judge stated "time spent" does not matter as much here as that would open up the market definition to all sorts of non-related things we do online including playing videogames.
I am confused. I find myself going in circles trying to understand how the market definition is going to be be decided.
One last note: All this executive testimony seems after the lawsuit began. This FTC lawsuit was started in 2020 and long before that Meta knew it might be taken to court over antitrust. The Adam Mosseri interview was in 2021 and by 2021 everyone at Meta knew what they had to say in public and over email regarding these antitrust issues. So does it really matter what Adam Mosseri told Stratechery in 2021 ?
All these tech companies have told their employees what to say regarding antitrust.
number 1. dont talk about it.
number 2. if you talk about it make sure to say we have lots of competition.
Good points. I agree that Meta is spending a lot of time so far establishing that TikTok and Meta's apps compete for "time and attention," which probably isn't the narrowest market and so ultimately doesn't matter. And I agree that the Court will probably view the post-2020 evidence with more skepticism for the reason you suggest. Meta's witnesses have had some serious credibility issues trying to walk away from words they wrote.