Advocacy groups are pushing the FTC to break up Facebook(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Advocacy groups are pushing the FTC to break up Facebook
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/24/18195959/facebook-advocacy-groups-ftc-break-up-cambridge-analytica-scandal-data-breach
45 comments
Also, what about microsoft, netflix, amazon, twitter and most importantly google
Only have to break up one and the rest will fall into line.
what aboutism
Only have to break up one and the rest will fall into line.
what aboutism
Fall in line how?
Other than Google, which clearly abuses (at times) their market power from the dominance of Google Ads, Android, and Chrome, I have no idea what draws the ire of all those other companies; not individually and certainly not as a group.
I guess it's supposed to be something... something... social media... something... privacy... something. But I strongly suspect it's just vague anti-corporate sentiment, anxiety around our bitter political divisiveness, and resentment over the excesses in the technology sector (e.g. brogrammers).
I'm no anti-trust scholar but I don't think the purpose and design of anti-trust law is to resolve national cultural crises.
Other than Google, which clearly abuses (at times) their market power from the dominance of Google Ads, Android, and Chrome, I have no idea what draws the ire of all those other companies; not individually and certainly not as a group.
I guess it's supposed to be something... something... social media... something... privacy... something. But I strongly suspect it's just vague anti-corporate sentiment, anxiety around our bitter political divisiveness, and resentment over the excesses in the technology sector (e.g. brogrammers).
I'm no anti-trust scholar but I don't think the purpose and design of anti-trust law is to resolve national cultural crises.
Microsoft is the poster-child of abusing market power, and Amazon isn't exactly innocent on that front, either.
I do think Amazon is the new Microsoft. With AWS, Amazon figured out how to embrace, extend, and extinguish the entire open source ecosystem. But AFAIK AWS isn't yet acting anti-competitively. (And neither is Microsoft any longer, for that matter.) I suppose maybe in the book publishing industry there are strong anti-trust concerns.
But I don't think this is what people have on their minds. Few in the industry question the consequences of moving to AWS. And most people--techies and non-techies--use and enjoy Google Search, Chrome, and Android without qualms. Nobody is shedding a tear for Bing, Firefox, or Yahoo, and in any event nobody is arguing that Google unfairly muscled them out.
It's only when a service or technology implicates social media do people really get fired up, and to a lesser degree the selling of mined personal data. But the fact that people think of Facebook, Google, and Twitter, plus a litany of other tech companies with household recognition, should all be punished betrays their logic. None of this behavior is anti-competitive; it's not destroying markets; it's not transferring wealth. It's one thing to argue personal data aggregation, mining, and selling should be more heavily regulated (a la GDPR). But anti-trust has nothing to do with it, and I don't see how splitting any of these companies up would substantially change anything, let alone result in a net benefit. At least not under the pretense of "fixing" social media, privacy, or fake news.
But I don't think this is what people have on their minds. Few in the industry question the consequences of moving to AWS. And most people--techies and non-techies--use and enjoy Google Search, Chrome, and Android without qualms. Nobody is shedding a tear for Bing, Firefox, or Yahoo, and in any event nobody is arguing that Google unfairly muscled them out.
It's only when a service or technology implicates social media do people really get fired up, and to a lesser degree the selling of mined personal data. But the fact that people think of Facebook, Google, and Twitter, plus a litany of other tech companies with household recognition, should all be punished betrays their logic. None of this behavior is anti-competitive; it's not destroying markets; it's not transferring wealth. It's one thing to argue personal data aggregation, mining, and selling should be more heavily regulated (a la GDPR). But anti-trust has nothing to do with it, and I don't see how splitting any of these companies up would substantially change anything, let alone result in a net benefit. At least not under the pretense of "fixing" social media, privacy, or fake news.
Break it up into what? All the problems of Facebook are inherent to Facebook as a product, "breaking up" Facebook doesn't really fix anything.
Facebooks problem is that it makes it easier for people to exchange ideas, news fake or not, and more, all without the oversight of government which really does not like that level of free interaction. local community interaction is fine, being able to interact nationally or globally with ease undermines the power of politicians and their political backers.
the concerns are not about meddling in elections but meddling by people not approved by existing parties and their supporters.
they want to control the message and approve the messengers. the internet as a whole is a threat to that but not organized enough to where other groups can communicate with like thinking people easily and quickly. tools like facebook give people the ability to organize beyond their local geographical area.
the concerns are not about meddling in elections but meddling by people not approved by existing parties and their supporters.
they want to control the message and approve the messengers. the internet as a whole is a threat to that but not organized enough to where other groups can communicate with like thinking people easily and quickly. tools like facebook give people the ability to organize beyond their local geographical area.
Back during the Microsoft antitrust trial, there was talk of breaking them up into two companies, Apps and Systems. And I thought, really? Now you'll just have two companies--smaller, nimbler, hungrier, that don't compete with each other. Or, as jwz might say, "Now you have two problems."
I remember a cartoon at that time. The first pane was titled “Microsoft before the breakup”, and it was a picture of a big, mean, nasty octopus.
The second pane was titled “Microsoft after the breakup”, and it was a picture of two big, mean, nasty octopi.
The second pane was titled “Microsoft after the breakup”, and it was a picture of two big, mean, nasty octopi.
Break it up into what?
Off the top of my head:
- Facebook content
- Facebook advertising
- Facebook messenger
- Instagram
- whatever other apps Facebook owns
- probably a whole bunch of others that will require thinking about it more than four seconds.
Off the top of my head:
- Facebook content
- Facebook advertising
- Facebook messenger
- whatever other apps Facebook owns
- probably a whole bunch of others that will require thinking about it more than four seconds.
> Facebook content
> Facebook advertising
> Facebook messenger
Those are all inextricable from the Facebook platform. If there is no Facebook platform there is no place for ads or content, if there is no Facebook user database there is no way to route messages. I suppose for messages you could clone the database and give it to each company but that seems strictly worse since now you have two companies with your Facebook PII.
> Instagram... whatever other apps Facebook owns
Sure, but like I said, that that doesn't really change anything. Can you please elaborate on how the consumer would benefit from this?
> probably a whole bunch of others that will require thinking about it more than four seconds.
No need for sarcastic quips.
Those are all inextricable from the Facebook platform. If there is no Facebook platform there is no place for ads or content, if there is no Facebook user database there is no way to route messages. I suppose for messages you could clone the database and give it to each company but that seems strictly worse since now you have two companies with your Facebook PII.
> Instagram... whatever other apps Facebook owns
Sure, but like I said, that that doesn't really change anything. Can you please elaborate on how the consumer would benefit from this?
> probably a whole bunch of others that will require thinking about it more than four seconds.
No need for sarcastic quips.
Two facebooks that need to talk with each other (and new implementations) via open and documented protocol.
This is the worst case scenario for consumers.
An "open and documented protocol" is what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal; most people are not informed enough to properly manage permissions and even if they were, the personal data of friends would necessarily be available via this protocol. Posting something on this new platform-ized Facebook would be akin to sharing with every app each of your friends has authorized.
An "open and documented protocol" is what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal; most people are not informed enough to properly manage permissions and even if they were, the personal data of friends would necessarily be available via this protocol. Posting something on this new platform-ized Facebook would be akin to sharing with every app each of your friends has authorized.
[deleted]
Yes, exactly; just like breaking up Bell in the 80s.
Insta/Facebook is the most obvious split. Maybe break it out into regions or countries?
They have way too much power, have to take some sort of steps.
They have way too much power, have to take some sort of steps.
Are there any historical examples of this where the company in question was not in charge or national resources or infrastructure that was paid by a government?. All the bell, oil, railroad examples have this in common.
Short of the government making these companies the only government approved ones in their respective fields I do not see how breaking them up would be something that can be done. Even then the monopoly would only exist because yet again the government created it.
Short of the government making these companies the only government approved ones in their respective fields I do not see how breaking them up would be something that can be done. Even then the monopoly would only exist because yet again the government created it.
Are there any historical examples of this where the company in question was not in charge or [sic] national resources or infrastructure that was paid by a government?.
American Tobacco Company, for one. There are a number of others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Toba....
American Tobacco Company, for one. There are a number of others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Toba....
American Tobacco was aggressively and successfully conspiring with other companies to maintain high prices. It's precisely such conspiracies to restrain trade that are specifically prohibited by the Sherman Act.
How is Facebook conspiring to restrain trade? With whom? Would breaking Facebook up result in lower prices for using social media services? The services are already free. Should people expect to get paid for posting selfies?
Breaking up Facebook for its behavior would be like breaking up IBM for age discrimination. It doesn't matter whether it's wrong nor even whether it's illegal. It's neither the function nor intent of anti-trust law to break up companies under such pretenses.
How is Facebook conspiring to restrain trade? With whom? Would breaking Facebook up result in lower prices for using social media services? The services are already free. Should people expect to get paid for posting selfies?
Breaking up Facebook for its behavior would be like breaking up IBM for age discrimination. It doesn't matter whether it's wrong nor even whether it's illegal. It's neither the function nor intent of anti-trust law to break up companies under such pretenses.
Are there any analogous corporate breakups in history? Any tech companies that have been broken up as these people are suggesting?
AT&T and Bell were broken up, but that was because it was a monopoly.[1] I don't think Facebook is a monopoly though.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
Also Standard oil back in 1911[1]. Those are the only 2 cases I'm aware of in US history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup
It does effectively have a monopoly on online identity. Organizations like Uber and Airbnb depend on FB accounts for trust.
But I think the most effective way to take down the monopoly isn't by regulating, because it may hurt consumers. Instead the government could help make FB obsolete.
If people could "login with us.gov" instead of "login with Facebook", I think most people would.
But I think the most effective way to take down the monopoly isn't by regulating, because it may hurt consumers. Instead the government could help make FB obsolete.
If people could "login with us.gov" instead of "login with Facebook", I think most people would.
If there's any dependency it's a soft dependency. I don't have FB and I use uber and airbnb.
It may be harder as a host/driver, but you're right that they may have fixed that dependency. Back in 2008, it was one of the main ways you could trust the car or house that you're about to step into.
> If people could "login with us.gov" instead of "login with Facebook"
No way. I trust the government less than I trust Facebook to maintain privacy and not abuse power. And I don't trust Facebook.
No way. I trust the government less than I trust Facebook to maintain privacy and not abuse power. And I don't trust Facebook.
> If people could "login with us.gov" instead of "login with Facebook", I think most people would.
Oh hell no. Bad enough that Facebook knows every step I do on the Internet thanks to ubiquitous trackers - but the government? No way. This is China's Social Credit Score waiting to happen.
Oh hell no. Bad enough that Facebook knows every step I do on the Internet thanks to ubiquitous trackers - but the government? No way. This is China's Social Credit Score waiting to happen.
Possibly you are unaware that some Internet users do not reside in the US?
While I appreciate your sarcasm, this sort of thing will need to be done on a nation-by-nation basis. Take it up with your own damn parliament or whatever.. you don't need to wait on Silicon Valley for a fix.
When it comes to online social identity, the US is years behind China anyways.
When it comes to online social identity, the US is years behind China anyways.
I've never had a facebook account. My online identity is fine thank you.
Also, why should the government help make any private company "obsolete"? Do you really want the government deciding which private company succeeds or not? So from 2008 to 2016, obama gets to decide which company gets to exist. Now you want Trump to decide which companies exist? I can't believe there are people here actually advocating for government control of the private sector.
I'd rather not use a "gov" account for anything but "gov" related things. Nevermind that the government tends to be a bureaucratic mess, it's also a major privacy and security problem. Facebook is a spying and data collecting behemoth. Lets solve it by having the government spy on us.
When did the hacker ethos become "government is the solution for everything" so "let's trust government"?
If we wanted a government login for everything, we'd already have it. I don't know if you are american or not, but I'm willing to bet that most of us don't want a government login or identity for the internet.
Also, why should the government help make any private company "obsolete"? Do you really want the government deciding which private company succeeds or not? So from 2008 to 2016, obama gets to decide which company gets to exist. Now you want Trump to decide which companies exist? I can't believe there are people here actually advocating for government control of the private sector.
I'd rather not use a "gov" account for anything but "gov" related things. Nevermind that the government tends to be a bureaucratic mess, it's also a major privacy and security problem. Facebook is a spying and data collecting behemoth. Lets solve it by having the government spy on us.
When did the hacker ethos become "government is the solution for everything" so "let's trust government"?
If we wanted a government login for everything, we'd already have it. I don't know if you are american or not, but I'm willing to bet that most of us don't want a government login or identity for the internet.
I've never had a facebook account. My online identity is fine thank you.
How's your shadow profile?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-...
How's your shadow profile?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-...
I'm almost certain facebook has no "shadow profile" of me. Can't say the same about google though whose reach stretches far deeper and wider than facebook's. And that's not a facebook problem. That's a internet/social media problem. I'm more worried about google's "shadow profile" or my ISP's "shadow profile" or my financial insitution's "shadow profile" than facebook's. Also, I don't see how "breaking up" facebook would do anything to solve the privacy problems.
Who are Facebook's competitors?
What is Facebook's market? Social media or advertising? If the main "clients/users" are the typical average Joe, and the service is free, does it count as a monopoly (At least in terms of anti-trust laws)?
That it doesn't own? In the US you could probably could argue:
LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat, Youtube, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumblr. I be they would also argue Google, which would be true from an advertising perspective.
LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat, Youtube, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumblr. I be they would also argue Google, which would be true from an advertising perspective.
It seems to me that US trust busting in the past was:
1. Seen as radical at the time, and odious to all private industry. 2. Able to leave shareholder value somewhat intact because they were simply splitting physical assets.
While I think 2 might be addressed by eg forcing Instagram/YouTube/etc to spin off, 1 would require the election of radicals to high office. Our political system has built in so many safeguards over the years to keep true radicals out of office that I just can't see it happening. Trump promised many things, but disruption of business was not one of them.
edit: What I see as more likely is regulations that preserve shareholder value and enshrine these companies as utilities, erecting barriers to entry so high that they become permanent monopolies, while (hopefully) slowly reigning in the wild profits.
edit 2: Facebook's current share price basically values it as a utility already, and given their slowing growth they might even lobby for such regulation themselves to staunch the bleeding.
1. Seen as radical at the time, and odious to all private industry. 2. Able to leave shareholder value somewhat intact because they were simply splitting physical assets.
While I think 2 might be addressed by eg forcing Instagram/YouTube/etc to spin off, 1 would require the election of radicals to high office. Our political system has built in so many safeguards over the years to keep true radicals out of office that I just can't see it happening. Trump promised many things, but disruption of business was not one of them.
edit: What I see as more likely is regulations that preserve shareholder value and enshrine these companies as utilities, erecting barriers to entry so high that they become permanent monopolies, while (hopefully) slowly reigning in the wild profits.
edit 2: Facebook's current share price basically values it as a utility already, and given their slowing growth they might even lobby for such regulation themselves to staunch the bleeding.
> Facebook's current share price basically values it as a utility already
Market cap is a measure of investors' beliefs of a company's future free cash flows. Regulated utilities have capped profits, so their valuation tends to be lower. Facebook absolutely does not have the valuation of a utility. Name a utility with a market cap of 400 billion USD (hint: the largest electric utility in the world has a market cap of $86.16 bilion).
Market cap is a measure of investors' beliefs of a company's future free cash flows. Regulated utilities have capped profits, so their valuation tends to be lower. Facebook absolutely does not have the valuation of a utility. Name a utility with a market cap of 400 billion USD (hint: the largest electric utility in the world has a market cap of $86.16 bilion).
Duke energy and Facebook have identical P/E ratios. Don’t have time to dig deeper but given that I don’t see regulation destroying shareholder value, the market sees them on a utility trajectory going forward.
Edit: name a utility with a global monopoly.
Edit: name a utility with a global monopoly.
1 would require the election of radicals to high office
How does Theodore Roosevelt fit into this model? How does JFK/Johnson fit into this model?
edit: What I see as more likely is regulations that preserve shareholder value and enshrine these companies as utilities, erecting barriers to entry so high that they become permanent monopolies, while (hopefully) slowly reigning in the wild profits.
That's 180 degrees away from where I'd go. Change regulations to favor new competitors arising. Right now, big tech companies seem to comprise a faction which sometimes colludes to crush potential competitors.
How does Theodore Roosevelt fit into this model? How does JFK/Johnson fit into this model?
edit: What I see as more likely is regulations that preserve shareholder value and enshrine these companies as utilities, erecting barriers to entry so high that they become permanent monopolies, while (hopefully) slowly reigning in the wild profits.
That's 180 degrees away from where I'd go. Change regulations to favor new competitors arising. Right now, big tech companies seem to comprise a faction which sometimes colludes to crush potential competitors.
TR was punted to the vice presidency to get him out of New York because he was too radical. Johnson and JFK pushed through some of the most progressive civil rights and anti poverty measures this country has ever seen. By today’s standards all three would 100% be considered radicals, and were considered so by their contemporaries.
Edit: I didn’t say what I want to happen, just what I thought was most likely. Strange reason to downvote
Edit 2: I think Vietnam weighs heavily on LBJ and JFK. I personally lay that on the feet of the military industrial complex coopting an inexperienced JFK, and LBJ doing everything he could to see through his predecessors policies.
Edit: I didn’t say what I want to happen, just what I thought was most likely. Strange reason to downvote
Edit 2: I think Vietnam weighs heavily on LBJ and JFK. I personally lay that on the feet of the military industrial complex coopting an inexperienced JFK, and LBJ doing everything he could to see through his predecessors policies.
What’s the best one for a New Yorker to get involved with?
Break up Google while you're at it.
More like Amazon
How about all three? Instead of everyone just picking their favorite platform for dubious reasons and blindly adhering to that corp maybe we should just bust them all up at once in one swoop, whether they are on your "team" or not.
Google is probably the most dangerous and abusive of the three today, but I think Amazon is trying to steal that throne and will probably be much scarier in a few years.
Google is probably the most dangerous and abusive of the three today, but I think Amazon is trying to steal that throne and will probably be much scarier in a few years.
Why not both?
Also, what about microsoft, netflix, amazon, twitter and most importantly google? Also, what about humongous international banks? Or the chemicals/agribusiness where 2 or 3 companies dominate the world's market. What about the media? Where a handle of megacorporations own so much of the market?