Facebook says it shouldn’t be broken up because it is very successful

(blacklight447) #1

boo fucking hoo

(NoHablaPrivacy) #2

Not sure why it’s anyone’s concern that a private business be broken up. It’s ok for companies to make money. Lots are aware of the shady mentality of Facebook and it still has 3 billion users. People will make their choice and if they choose to keep it so be it. I chose not to and got rid of all my social accounts a few years ago.


of course it’s the government’s and our concern. That’s the whole point of anti-trust law, to prevent harmful monopolies forming, which are inevitable conclusions of competition in a market system.

(NoHablaPrivacy) #4

Alphabet and Disney are monopolies that are allowed to exist, with little care by the masses. Facebook only exists because others still choose to use it even knowing the privacy concerns. It isn’t vital to any individuals health and well-being and if it were to not exist, most would forget about it.

1 Like

The PR pitch from Clegg is hilarious. It’s pure word salad. :smile:

A billion+ people in China don’t seem to care about living in a single party state with “great leader for life!” Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.


That’s true but that is due to regulatory capture more than anything else, being headquartered in the US.

This is actually an argument that we should care, and that governments should intervene, to prevent these harmful monopolies forming.

Whether they always do reliably is another matter entirely, that depends on the jurisdiction.

(NoHablaPrivacy) #7

Believe I need to clarify my point, I didn’t think we would get this far into it. But glad we are having the discussion.

Historically government intervention rarely worked as intended and took 5-10 years to rectify itself. Look at The Chicago 8 of he 60s, FDR Japanese internment camps, prohibition, even more recently the Patriot Act.

Most elected officials aren’t smarter than you or I. Also the average age of our Congress is 57. How many of your 57 + grandparents do you go to for help with new and growing technologies?

If you haven’t watched any of the Facebook hearings, you should when you have time. The questions asked were from people uneducated in what they were trying to handle. Congress should have assigned experts to formulate their questions and be alongside to ask follow up questions.

If the government would consult expert in these fields, instead of worrying about fund raising and re-election, and allow them to devise the best way forward. Then certainly I’d be onboard for some sort of government intervention, however, this is not how it is likely to occur and if it’s only elected officials behind closed doors making decisions then I’m fully against it


This seems to be more of a product of the American political system and/or cultural attitudes. Consider something like healthcare; the only reason (IMO, I am open to alternative viewpoints) USA does not cover its citizens is because of corruption in the healthcare industry. In terms of productivity, the US healthcare system is generally considered to be one of the most inefficient systems among advanced economies (on a cost basis) and it doesn’t cover everyone. This is not the case in EU and Canada.

You could argue that healthcare is an outlier, but it really isn’t the only example of this trend. As far as I know, something like mandatory forced arbitration is also more of a US thing. I don’t see any rational reason for allowing companies to ban consumers and employees from using the real judicial system in lieu of what is functionally a kangaroo court where the judge is paid by one of the parties.

The US supreme court even admitted that they support this decision because they believe that financial interests of companies should take priority over citizens’ right (page 8):

I don’t mean to shit on the US. There are problems and corruption everywhere and in most countries (not just advanced economies) corruption is significantly worse than in USA. But it’s not unreasonable to consider USA a bad example of effective regulation. On average (not specific segments), US businesses are far more likely to have a “veto mandate” on both specific rights and expression of democratic will.

Even if we assume that say EU regulation is just as bad as in the US, what other options do we have? Leave things as they are? That’s not going to work. Someone like Zuckerburg (or Bezos) is incapable of self-reflection, good faith approaches to alternative viewpoints or really anything other than self-enrichment (at any cost) and shameless lying (lets not sugarcoat things by using terms like “PR”).

I would rather try alternative approaches instead of putting hope in some unelected oligarchs who are incapable of honesty.


Historically government intervention rarely worked as intended and took 5-10 years to rectify itself. Look at The Chicago 8 of he 60s, FDR Japanese internment camps, prohibition, even more recently the Patriot Act.

Completely disagree here. Of course, government has had failures, but your argument seems to require perfection to allow government intervention to be a positive. To turn this around, deregulation or failure to regulate has also had catastrophic consequences. For example, the Reagan-era deregulation of the financial services and banking markets in the 80s, led to the savings and loans crisis, and ultimately, through its successive ideologies, the GFC. A few other examples here include: failure to regulate e-cigarettes properly has led to increases in teenage smoking rates, and failure to regulate products and medicine prior to the relevant regulatory authorities, led to thousands of preventable deaths. These are just a few examples of the issues of deregulation.

It may be true that politicians are not geniuses, but thankfully, it is not the politicians who conduct anti-trust lawsuits, it is a federal prosecutor, on the advice of dozens, if not hundreds, of expert bureaucrats and consultants in areas of law, competition, technology/science and economics.

1 Like

Sounds like a little kids excuse for something they dont want to do


Found some other interesting bits of agit-prop from the Zuck:

“If what you care about is democracy and elections, then you want a company like us to invest billions of dollars a year, like we are, in building up really advanced tools to fight election interference,” Zuckerberg said.

“Our budget for safety this year is bigger than the whole revenue of our company was when we went public earlier this decade,” he said “A lot of that is because we’ve been able to build a successful business that can now support that.”

Even before the 2016 US elections, activists from small countries tried to warn Zuck/FB about the use of Facebook by state actors to disrupt politics and sow discord. Zuck wasn’t having any of it. And now that it has become politically expedient, he is all about “protecting democracy.”

I wonder if he even recognizes his own hypocrisy or if he genuinely believes in his own PR/agit-prop…

1 Like
(Jonah) #12

Disney has competitors like Warner Media, Fox, Comcast, Nickelodeon, Netflix…

Alphabet has competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. And to a lesser extent other smartphone companies like Samsung, and browserdevelopers like Mozilla.

Facebook’s direct competitors are who? Twitter and Snapchat, two barely-profitable-at-best companies? Facebook dominates social media. They destroyed competitors like Google+, and they’re destroying Snapchat by literally copying all their features into Instagram, because they couldn’t buy Snapchat out. There’s no question Instagram and WhatsApp should be split off from Facebook. They’re very obviously just slowly becoming clones of Facebook and FB Messenger at this point. I hear Instagram is even going to start allowing text-only posts.

1 Like

They(facebook) are planning to merge Instagram, Messenger, Whatsapp and Facebook into one app/site