Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It’s Time to Break Up Facebook By Chris Hughes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It’s Time to Break Up Facebook By Chris Hughes

    Way overdue imo


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/o...uckerberg.html

    Chris Hughes, the Harvard roommate of and co-founder of Facebook with Mark Zuckerberg, writes in a piece for the New York Times that "it is time to break up Facebook."
    "America was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person, because we are all fallible," writes Hughes. "That's why the founders created a system of checks and balances." Hughes explains that because Zuckerberg has a 60 percent control of Facebook’s voting shares, "Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook's algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered."
    ...

    Hughes sees Zuckerberg's "unilateral control over speech" as "the most problematic aspect of Facebook’s power."

    "There is no precedent for his ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people," he says. For this, Hughes is calling on the government to hold Zuckerberg accountable and believes current actions against Facebook, such as a $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission aren’t enough to rein in Zuckerberg in. "We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark's power is unprecedented and un-American."


    click on link its wayyyyy to long to post good read though.


  • #2
    You don't have to actually use Facebook if you don't want to, just saying. I think I login twice a year.

    Comment


    • #3
      The anti-regularion crowd who have actively ignored and undermined anti-trust laws are suddenly wanting to bitch about monopolies? lulz

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post
        The anti-regularion crowd who have actively ignored and undermined anti-trust laws are suddenly wanting to bitch about monopolies? lulz
        Actual legitimate antitrust regulation has been neglected by both parties for generations.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ZONA View Post
          You don't have to actually use Facebook if you don't want to, just saying. I think I login twice a year.
          Sadly that isn't the case with a lot of people whom are the subjects of algorithms and don't even know it.

          Comment


          • #6
            That is how Rockefeller became the worlds richest man his company got broken up.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's kind of silly how people blame facebook and twitter and these other forms of media. People using the apps constantly is the only thing giving them the capital and control they have now. Um, maybe don't use them every damn single day of your lives. You will probably still get by just fine. In fact, set the phone aside for half the day, get outside and do some stuff.

              Comment


              • #8
                Social media isn't a commodity. You can make your own social media site, facebook won't stop you. Just look at Google Plus. The problem is fragmentation. Nobody want's to create a dozen social media profiles for different friend groups. While I'm anti-monopoly, I don't believe that social media capable of monopolization. If you have the better site, people will come to it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post
                  Social media isn't a commodity. You can make your own social media site, facebook won't stop you. Just look at Google Plus. The problem is fragmentation. Nobody want's to create a dozen social media profiles for different friend groups. While I'm anti-monopoly, I don't believe that social media capable of monopolization. If you have the better site, people will come to it.
                  It's almost uniquely capable of monopoly. And you just cited the primary reason why. Giving people an actual equivalent choice requires all of society to make different market decisions. You can move. Most of your friends will not. This would've been like AT&T arguing back in the day "Well, they can build their own separate phone network if they want. Everyone could have two phones."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                    It's almost uniquely capable of monopoly. And you just cited the primary reason why. Giving people an actual equivalent choice requires all of society to make different market decisions. You can move. Most of your friends will not. This would've been like AT&T arguing back in the day "Well, they can build their own separate phone network if they want. Everyone could have two phones."
                    So what would would you like them to do? Put users into certain buckets and say "you can only use this social media site and this bucket can only use this social media site"? It makes no sense. If another site came along with enough features to move people to it's platform, it would happen. I don't think Facebook is a monopoly. You just have to make something better. Was MySpace a monopoly before Facebook? Was Friendster? Is the leader in users a monopoly by default? Is Android a monopoly in the Smartphone OS world due to it being the most widely used?

                    I don't like defending Facebook ever, but I'm not understanding what makes it a monopoly. Facebook doesn't own telecoms, they can't force Verizon to not allow users to access a new social media site. The new social media site doesn't have to build it's own telecom network to get to users, so your AT&T analogy doesn't really work here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                      So what would would you like them to do? Put users into certain buckets and say "you can only use this social media site and this bucket can only use this social media site"? It makes no sense. If another site came along with enough features to move people to it's platform, it would happen. I don't think Facebook is a monopoly. You just have to make something better. Was MySpace a monopoly before Facebook? Was Friendster? Is the leader in users a monopoly by default? Is Android a monopoly in the Smartphone OS world due to it being the most widely used?
                      Monopoly means different things and is regulated differently in different contexts. When it comes to pricing and trade, there's one standard. When it comes to essentially locking people out of the platform, there is another. That's the standard here.

                      Monopoly regulation is done to ensure fair competition, as well as to ensure that power in one market is not leveraged into power in others. In other words, using your position as a social platform to set yourself up as a defacto media regulator and distributor is certainly open to some regulatory oversight.

                      And the more they seem to want to dabble in unleveling playing fields there, the more of that kind of attention they'll invite. If they're smart, they will platform all opinions and claim no responsibility for the outcome.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                        Monopoly means different things and is regulated differently in different contexts. When it comes to pricing and trade, there's one standard. When it comes to essentially locking people out of the platform, there is another. That's the standard here.

                        Monopoly regulation is done to ensure fair competition, as well as to ensure that power in one market is not leveraged into power in others. In other words, using your position as a social platform to set yourself up as a defacto media regulator and distributor is certainly open to some regulatory oversight.

                        And the more they seem to want to dabble in unleveling playing fields there, the more of that kind of attention they'll invite. If they're smart, they will platform all opinions and claim no responsibility for the outcome.
                        Or they could be a private company that can host or not host whoever they want on their platform? There are other platforms that exist for those who no longer are welcome on Facebook you know. Like Stormfront, Gab, etc.

                        It's only an un-level playing field if your ideas aren't popular with the masses I guess.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                          Or they could be a private company that can host or not host whoever they want on their platform? There are other platforms that exist for those who no longer are welcome on Facebook you know. Like Stormfront, Gab, etc.

                          It's only an un-level playing field if your ideas aren't popular with the masses I guess.
                          That's not really the nature of social media. And the law in place already anticipates that. There's a reason platforms like Facebook aren't criminally liable for content posted on their network. The next time someone livestreams a crime or incitement to it on Facebook, should they be held legally accountable?

                          Or do they get the currently understood protection of "It's not our content or responsibility. We're only a medium."

                          The law shields them from liability for content on this very basis. They can't (as a monopoly player in this market mind you) turn around and pick and choose when they accept responsibility for the messages posted and when they do not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            While you're at it, let's also break up Google, Amazon, the NSA and...yes...the CIA. Scatter it to the four winds. The world will breathe easier.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                              Actual legitimate antitrust regulation has been neglected by both parties for generations.
                              Yeah, the Republican-lites who have ran the Democratic party since Clinton are guilty too. What’s your point? Only one party has a significant contingent of voters who support heavy regulation of the corporate sector, and the Republican party isn’t it. You guys seem to revel in the existence of a corporate plutocracy except for when isolated companies do stuff that annoy you. Then you suddenly get all pro-regulation. It’s hilarious.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X