Advocacy Groups Call for the FTC To Break Up Facebook (bleepingcomputer.com) 133
An anonymous reader shares a report: Several advocacy groups have banded together for a campaign that calls upon the US Federal Trade Commission to intervene and break up Facebook into smaller companies -- and more specifically to split off the Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp services from the mother company. The campaign, named Freedom from Facebook, was set into motion today by eight groups -- Demand Progress, Citizens Against Monopoly, Content Creators Coalition, Jewish Voice for Peace, MoveOn, Mpower Change, Open Markets Institute, and SumOfUs, respectively. Through a dedicated website, the eight advocacy groups are urging users to file a petition with the FTC on the grounds that Facebook has become a monopoly. The campaign's motto is "It's time to make Facebook safe for democracy." "Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have amassed a scary amount of power," the campaign's website reads. "Facebook unilaterally decides the news that billions of people around the world see every day."
If they didn't break up big banks (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
But it could be a good start (Score:3)
Surprisingly insightful branch and it even makes me wish I had a few mod points to share around, at least once in a while. Been many years since I've seen one...
Trying to put this in a clear positive light, it's about FREEDOM, but the root of the problem is that most people have very little understanding of it. For example, the big banks that JoeyRox mentioned think the most important freedom is to get rid of any regulations that interfere with greater profits. Microsoft thinks freedom should be which minor
Re:If they didn't break up big banks (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they could exactly because of the banks (and similar power structures), FB is a nice big scapegoat, one with "leftist" leanings, that they'd love to throw under the bus for some easy bread and circuses. Basically FB hits all the hot buttons for the so-called conservatives. Founded by a Harvard grad (east coast liberal elitist), run out of California (left coast elitists). They'll point at FB and screech "see what happens when you don't listen to real Americans!!!!"
Because exactly what they want to do is distract from the far more significant harm that banks, insurance/healthcare and so on are really doing to the citizens.
I mean the Equifax breaches were far far more serious in terms of harm to people and look, they brushed that under the carpet like it was no big deal.
Posting again: I love the United States. (Score:2)
Mod the parent comment up. The U.S. financial system and healthcare need adequate repair and supervision also.
Re: Posting again: I love the United States. (Score:2)
Based on the current government, the solution is to deregulate industries that canâ(TM)t be trusted. That is a shift from common sense, of the traditional form.
Re: (Score:2)
Founded by a Harvard grad
Zuck dropped out his sophomore year.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he did - the CIA's check cleared.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're claiming that Demand Progress, Citizens Against Monopoly, Content Creators Coalition, Jewish Voice for Peace, MoveOn, Mpower Change, Open Markets Institute, and SumOfUs are all shilling for conservatives now?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Facebook is a crown corporation created to allow the intelligence community a loophole around the US Constitution. The might as well be viewed as an intelligence agency themselves at this point. The difference being that they can do their commerce publicly while the CIA has to move drugs in secret.
Re: (Score:3)
No single big bank has a monopoly. Facebook pretty much does have a monopoly in that there are no serious competitors for what it does. However, you are correct that they are not going to break up Facebook and if they did, one of the constituent parts would end up dominating in five years anyway.
The problem is that the whole point of a social media site for the users is to be able to connect to other people on it. The site that has the most people on it that you want to connect to wins which makes it awfull
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. I can advertise in lots of different places. Local media, Google, Microsoft, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No single big bank has a monopoly
Except they were deemed "too big to fail" so they could get away with any behavior including illegal forclosures [huffpost.com] And laundering billions in drug money [theguardian.com]. Absolutely no punishment or even fines were leveled against the big banks. Breaking them up allows for thier complete collapse under thier own mismanagement without crashing the whole economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, messenger makes sense with Facebook.
Facebook is about communicating (for the users) and messenging people is part of communicating.
Re: (Score:1)
Then they're definitely not going to break up Facebook, provided of course Facebook throws enough money to politicians and K Street.
There's a big difference. Banks and politicians have all sort of interweaving shared interests so it's a complicated beast. Facebook can easily be sacrificed with zero personal impact to any politician and it will make them look good in the polls. This could have some legs.
This is inane (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook may be quite evil, but it is by no means has a monopoly on social media. It may occupy a particular niche in the social media eco-system. But I am not sure that there can really be more than one in a given niche. For social media to work at all, the majority of people who are interested in social media have to be in the same place.
Put limits on data collection and retention, sure. But break them up? All that'll happen is that another player will fill the niche. And being aware of what had been done to FB, they'll manage to be more evil: they'll do the same thing, but hide it even better.
Re:This is inane (Score:4, Interesting)
At least that's the plan as I see it. In practice all the various "autonomous" operations will almost certainly allow their users to login using your Facebook (the holding company, not the advertising platform) login for their convenience and still maintain access to each others data, only in a slightly less efficient and complete manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the definition of a monopoly is... er... being really popular?
Re: This is inane (Score:1)
By that rationale, Windows wasn't a monopoly, it was just really popular.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't cheat by asking technologically literate people. Ask your relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can't get people that exclusively use a service to chose stop using the service they are using, then that service is a monopoly?
No one is forced to sign up for a facebook account. People use it because that is where their friends are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge accepted.
Given some of the organizations I am involved with, I have to communicate outside of work with a large number of people.
It would be nice to be able to just email them all - but a number don't read their email, and have an uber clogged inbox.
Facebook groups? Nope. Too many, especially millennials, are not active on FB, preferring twitter or snapchat.
So, no. I wouldn't call FB a monopoly. But even if I were to stipulate that ok, for the sake of argument, they are a monopoly, can social
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to seeing your RFC.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok - then you can't hold any of these companies responsible for user security if they have to be interoperable with every wanna be social service
Re: (Score:1)
"For social media to work at all, the majority of people who are interested in social media have to be in the same place."
Precisely. Imagine what would happen to email if everyone used different services.
Re: (Score:2)
Very different use case.
Email is at its core point to point. Even when you send to multiple recipients, it is still just many point to point messages.
Social media is based around a centralized data store.
Re:This is inane (Score:4, Insightful)
A company doesn't need to be a complete monopoly for the Sherman Antitrust Act to be invoked. It just needs to be powerful enough to force the rest of the market to go along with its demands. That's what Standard Oil did prior to 1911 and is what Facebook is doing now.
Re: (Score:2)
But break them up? All that'll happen is that another player will fill the niche.
That's what's supposed to happen when properly functioning Anti-Trust DOJ regulators DO THEIR JOB!
In case you're not aware, monopolies always end up exploiting their "customers". It used to be they were broken up, and the public - including shareholders - benefited greatly. The DOJ hasn't had a properly functioning Anti-Trust division in...well, forever. These days, there's no merger too big for them to allow. There hasn't been a meaningful action out of those guys since MSFT in the 90s.
Right now, it'
Re: This is inane (Score:2)
You had such an opportunity to follow through with that opening line. Maybe:
"Facebook may be quite evil, but it by no means has a monopoly on being evil."
You are right it has no monopoly on social media, but how it behaves should be irrespective of whether or not it has a monopoly. If it is broken up, then it just ends up being another set of social islands. The great ideal would be a decentralised social platform, that no one entity controls, though there probably is no real business incentive to do so. Ju
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook may be quite evil, but it is by no means has a monopoly on social media. It may occupy a particular niche in the social media eco-system. But I am not sure that there can really be more than one in a given niche. For social media to work at all, the majority of people who are interested in social media have to be in the same place.
Put limits on data collection and retention, sure. But break them up? All that'll happen is that another player will fill the niche. And being aware of what had been done to FB, they'll manage to be more evil: they'll do the same thing, but hide it even better.
Better would be for Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and others to come to agreement (or be dragged kicking and screaming) to use open standards for text, voice, and video messaging and directory services.
It is absurd and undermines everything the Internet stands for that I have to buy into one of the "Ecosystems" of products from a single company in order to have basic communications over the Internet.
Really it is sad that we have allowed ourselves to be so completely owned by and dependent on these comp
Zuckerberg's Run for Presidency (Score:4, Informative)
Someone recently posted the Facebook earnings figures and it showed the #deletefacebook campaign barely put in a dent. No one except celebrities left the platform en-mass. Look at the list of backers in this particular campaign. It tells us something. I wrote about it here:
https://fightthefuture.org/article/facebook-politics-and-orwells-24-7-hate/
I suspect Zuckerberg plan for a presidential run pissed off some of the old rich. He young, he's a new kid, and the gods of old media wanted to put him in his place. All the focus has been on Facebook, when Google, Apple, Amazon, Adobe and even Microsoft collect just as much data and do the same types of analytics.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Facebook broken apart too; and same with Google. I doubt this campaign will go anywhere though. It's a rich man's pissing contest. We're seeing the top 500 companies fight over relevance, and if anything, Facebook won that last round if you go by influence numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually this isn't true. People in the EU have been hitting up these companies for what private data they hold on them for some time now, and there's a marked difference between the breadth and depth of data held by Facebook and Google and the rest (Microsoft/LinkedIn is kind of in the middle because they don't track you from site to site via those little
Re: (Score:2)
It's simply a sign that:
- there are no serious competitors available to switch to. The network effect means that the value these systems have to their user base depends largely on the size of the user base. This means that new arrivals can't compete by just having better features.
- it's difficult to switch. The new GDPR law in the EU is trying to tackle, for example, vendor lock-in by forcing data portability.
Whether you call it a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
90% of what I do on FB is being part in groups around my sport, Aikido. ;D ...
That means I get updates about seminars. I have about 270 FB friends.
I know nearly everyone in RL. But only a hand full, perhaps ten, are family or "real friends" (as in class mates etc.).
No one of my "real friends" is using FB
I only use it for sports
Getting 270 people (and their networks where I'm not part of) to move to another site is close to impossible.
And as we don't use FB for "private things" there is no reason to change a
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Zuckerberg plan for a presidential run pissed off some of the old rich.
Zuckerberg running for president isn't serious. Just because only a few left Facebook does not mean anyone would elect him for president.
All the focus has been on Facebook, when Google, Apple, Amazon, Adobe and even Microsoft collect just as much data and do the same types of analytics.
You must have missed the story yesterday where an iPhone user asked for his 8 years of data collection back and they sent him two dozen excel spreadsheets while everyone else sent hundreds of megabytes worth of data back https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Someone recently posted the Facebook earnings figures and it showed the #deletefacebook campaign barely put in a dent. No one except celebrities left the platform en-mass.
And that isn't really a surprise. Facebook forms the core of many people's social lives without alternative. Where outsiders see a bunch of people posting nothing but shit, insiders see a system for commerce, a communication platform with people important to them, integrated chatting features, event organisation, a link to real world events that people often accuse Facebook of displacing (hey great idea to meet people instead of posting on my wall, I'll get right on that by making a Facebook event).
For many
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you why I am still on Facebook... and then I will tell you how I am going to leave.
I am still on Facebook, because I still maintain a lot of second tier social connections that otherwise would just not happen. Facebook groups and the ability to find people online in a somewhat structured less anonymous way (and therefore somewhat less abusive or maybe at least less criminal).
There needs to be a renewed push for open communications and online community standards (which I am happy to help push for)
Re: (Score:1)
All the focus has been on Facebook, when Google, Apple, Amazon, Adobe and even Microsoft collect just as much data and do the same types of analytics.
One difference is that all of the others are public companies with directors that can be fired if the shareholders want change. Zuckerberg is effectively an unremovable dictator at Facebook. Shareholder votes are worthless.
I'd be concerned with... (Score:2)
As much as I dislike Facebook - (Score:5, Interesting)
has it really reached a point that we can call it a monopoly?
I admit - the tactics they used to get people to create accounts, from the early days that mostly consisted of not allowing people to view even "public" content without an account, were sort of underhanded, but they got people to create the accounts and those people kept coming back. There are plenty of other social networks out there, and plenty that compete with each of the ones above. They don't fit the proper definition of monopoly.
What keeps Facebook popular isn't the fact they're good, it's that other people are there - once they got a foothold they took off for the same reason Microsoft Office did - not because they're better than the competition, but because EVERYONE ELSE is using it.
I would argue Slashdot itself is a social network, from the early days of the Internet. I was/technically still am on LiveJournal, and despite the fact I don't use it anymore I think it's better than Facebook. I'm also on Minds, Steemit, and Google Plus. They aren't a monopoly.
I would love to see the company break apart, but the part of me that likes to do what's right doesn't want the government to do it. I want them to fall face down in a pile of crap and have everyone leave them of their own accord. Right now the pro-censorship charge being lead by Facebook, Google, and Twitter are driving some of the core participants from these platforms to the networks I've mentioned above and Gab.
As IPFS gains momentum and block-chain based social networks like Steemit as well as privatized nodes on the chains like https://akasha.world/ [akasha.world] Facebook is going to fall apart simply because people will be moving onto platforms they know aren't being controlled by a core group of overlords. The only way to stop block-chain based networks is for governments to truly show their tyrannical faces and break down the nodes - that requires going past lines they've tip-toed up to but don't want to cross for obvious reasons.
Once the chain takes off Facebook will be all about your Grandma hitting "Love" on pictures of your kids and your aunt forwarding stupid meme's which are some sort of Internet astrology based on first names and likely hood to be good moms, dads, dancers, or sloppy whatever. In short, it will be nothing but old people who aren't going to learn to use something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural Monopoly, Best Defence Privacy Laws (Score:2)
has it really reached a point that we can call it a monopoly?
Yes, but it is a monopoly unlike any other and breaking it up will fail. The whole point of Facebook is that everyone is on the same site and so can share information and details with each other (and of course Facebook itself). If you break that up one of the parts will become dominant, everyone will move to that because sharing requires it and all you have is Facebook 2.0.
Even if you pass laws to try and limit what a social media company can do that will likely fail as well because the company can simp
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of Facebook is that everyone is on the same site and so can share information and details with each other
There's e-mail. There's the web. There's Usenet. Etc, etc.
There are a lot of ways to maintain one-to-one or one-to-may communications with other people. Zuckerberg just adopted the Microsoft model of tying a bunch of services together to make it 'easier' for the general public to use. You don't have to maintain a bunch of accounts on different systems.
If you break that up one of the parts will become dominant
Not if you break it up by function. Posting content (cat videos, for example) would be separated from messaging functions. Everyone could conceivably use the
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, here it is. This is the line that should be getting the positive mod points (that I never have to give). I found it on the search for "standard". Only one comment so far? (Sadly, I am not amazed.)
Yes, where communications between competing companies are important, OPEN standards are the key.
Let me go farther and suggest an implementation path: Pro-freedom taxation. Whenever any company becomes too dominant and starts eliminating competitors and reducing freedom, that company's taxes should increase. The
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it is a monopoly unlike any other and breaking it up will fail. The whole point of Facebook is that everyone is on the same site and so can share information and details with each other (and of course Facebook itself).
You could break it up into different pieces, and place restrictions on what those pieces are allowed to do. But then you'd also have to somehow monitor those pieces to make sure they were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
You could break it up into different pieces, and place restrictions on what those pieces are allowed to do.
How would you make that stick? If you break up Facebook you leave the field wide open for someone else. Since US laws stop at the US border if an EU company recreated Facebook outside the US they can just ignore US laws about separating certain services. Short of blocking the internet connection between the US and EU how would US regulations stop that company from operating and prevent US citizens for signing up for it?
No monpoly (Score:2)
Google is scarier than Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
"Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have amassed a scary amount of power,"
Google has more power and more information and frankly more opportunities for abuse. Facebook just isn't clever enough to be subtle about it.
Anyway this is nothing more than a stupid publicity stunt that they have to know cannot possibly happen, especially with the current administration and congress. They didn't break up the banks which nobody even seriously argues with the fact that they are a systemic threat to our financial system. If they didn't do that then Facebook certainly isn't going to get that kind of scrutiny here in the US. Maybe Europe could do something but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:1)
> Google has more power and more information
True, but they didn't make the decision to use their power to elect Trump.
You can check out ... (Score:3)
... any time you like, but you can never leave.
Facebook is too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
The too big to fail criteria depended on something critical to the nation.
- Amazon is too big to fail. Having half a million employees. ... let that number sink in for a second ... the shutdown of Amazon would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that.
- Banks are too big to fail. The system of money breaking down would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that.
- Car companies are too big to fail. The loss of their mix of an incredible number of e
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit.
Facebook is too big to fail for reasons other than jobs.
Facebook has a shit load of shareholders, as do the others you list.
That's way too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit.
Facebook is too big to fail for reasons other than jobs.
Facebook has a shit load of shareholders, as do the others you list.
That's way too big to fail.
I didn't say jobs, I actually listed 3 different economic indicators just as a start. But guess what, shareholders don't fall in the too big to fail category. They are quite often the biggest losers during bailout activities, and as such also the first to react to a failing business in an attempt to make a profit. Shares are easily transferred, and shareholder revolt is one of the things that will cause a company to need a bailout in the first place.
Now if you're talking about people's 401k, the government
LOL (Score:2)
The government happily approved the purchase / merger of these companies only 4 and 6 years ago. They wouldn't break them up, even if they did have a case to do so.
And no sorry, Facebook does not have a monopoly on chat or posting pictures online. They have considerable market power on social networks, but I'm thinking that the people who want Facebook split up don't use it in the first place and given it's a free product to consumers it's hard to make an antitrust case for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's shilling for who? Me for the government? I don't understand.
Points and laughs (Score:1)
None of this would be happening if Hillary won the election. These same people calling for Facebook's head on a platter would be cheering the use of social media as a major factor in electoral politics and heralding whomever they used as their social media coordinators. You would never hear the words "collusion" or "dossier" or "Stormy Daniels."
It's funny when people are hoist by their own petar.
What the hell would that even mean? (Score:1)
What would a break up of Facebook even look like? It's not like breaking up a phone company where you just have different companies owning different sets of wires in different parts of the country.
What, are people thinking after the break up there'd be Facebook 1 and Facebook 2? Who gets put on which? What if your friends all end up on one and you end up on the other? Obviously that wouldn't work.
Maybe people think the different facets would be different companies? Like what, the main news feed is one compa
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would mean the traditional Facebook service would be split from Messenger which would be split from Instragram.
It doesn't make a ton of logical sense compared to a typical anti-trust kind of situation, but perhaps we're reached the point where you need a new argument around products with a giant network affect or social media specifically, and need to argue that these network effects mean that these kinds of business can only be allowed to encompass one kind of social media "service".
It might also
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they have, from the very beginning of anti-trust actions.
They just haven't done much of any anti-trust enforcement lately.
Capitalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I argue that?
Monopolies are not good for capitalism... quite the opposite.
Re:Capitalism is dead (Score:2)
What we have now is corporate cancerism. ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Facebook is nothing comparied to Google (Score:2)
Google is far and away a greater monopoly than Facebook. Here we are socializing on Slashdot and unless you used Facebook login - no facebook need be involved. Request Policy is blocking all requests to their domain and this page works fine.
By contrast Google is essentially unavoidable. Some 90% of web searches are Google. If you send an e-mail odds are pretty high if you are not using GMail the recipient is or they are on whatever google for Domains is call this week. Find a commercial web site that d
Without Reason (Score:1)
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
No, people choose to use FB as their news source rather than going to real news organizations. These people believe they don't have the time to read the source material and instead want to be spoon-fed dribs and drabs.
FB is offering the service. That people are too lazy to do their own footwork is not FB's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you go to "real news organizations" for your news, you're going to get biaised opinions and "facts" aligned with the parent company's CEO political choice.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating Fox News, MSNBC, et. al. with news organizations.
Real news organizations, such as the better news papers & magazines, report facts and leave the editorializing to separate pieces.
Most "real news organizations" tend to promote whatever gathers the most attention, almostt regardless of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
No, people choose to use FB as their news source rather than going to real news organizations.
Suckers. I get my news from Google Now.
Re: (Score:1)
No, people choose to use FB as their news source rather than going to real news organizations. These people believe they don't have the time to read the source material and instead want to be spoon-fed dribs and drabs.
FB is offering the service. That people are too lazy to do their own footwork is not FB's problem.
But it is a problem if you believe in a strong democracy. And the democracy has the right to respond appropriately.
"The House on Willis Avenue" (Score:2)
As a Rockford files Buff, I encourage everyone to watch the Episode "The House on Williis Avenue". Basically, they stumble on a "datacenter" in that era, 1978. And the purpose of it is to know everything from everyone.
I don't think so (Score:2)
The difference between Twitter and Facebook is pretty subtle. It's just the network effect. I don't think the public is served by a break-up.
Re: (Score:2)
When I see a comment like this one, I have to wonder why you bothered to post it. It's like you looked at a complex situation, noticed it was complex, and therefore concluded your "solution" is to not think about it. Maybe you could have reduced your comment to the first three words of your closing sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not that complicated.
Are there alternatives, including just don't, with respect to Facebook? Absolutely.
There are much bigger fish to fry in monopolies:
1. Banks
2. Aerospace
3. ISPs
4. News agencies
I suspect Facebook will drift into irrelevancy, not take over the world. And if Facebook somehow corners the market on cat videos, how is that a danger to our society?
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have already spent more time considering your comments than they merited. My suggestion is that you read the book The Shallows and perhaps we could have an interesting discussion after you have digested it. But based on the two posts I've read, I think you will probably be unable to convince me that you've actually understood it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you find that insulting people is persuasive in your day-to-day life?
Based on the reviews, the thesis of The Shallows is that interaction with the internet is generally bad for our thought processes. Do you agree?
If the federal government breaks up Facebook, will this concern be addressed or will there just be two less efficient Facebooxen ?
On the edge of trolldom (Score:2)
Look back at your first reply to me. (If you have replied to me on previous occasions, then I have no memory of you.) Right now I see slightly elevated tit for tat. On that basis I regard your other less impolite or rude questions, though superficially potentially interesting, as probably motivated by Sophistry. There is no reason to waste time with Sophists, though it happens from time to time. In general, they resort to Sophistry precisely because their positions cannot be defended upon their own merits.
Re: (Score:2)
My position isn't pro-Facebook. My concerns aren't ant-trust issues.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have nothing to say. Are you incapable of saying nothing? Or are you just a troll?
My only problem with you being a troll is that so far you have done nothing memorable enough to quickly dismiss your identity the next time I encounter it. As noted previously, I want a proper EPR primarily to help trolls render themselves invisible in advance.
Trump hatred seems to know no bounds (Score:1)
All these progressives used to LOVE Facebook. They never cared about the fact that the company was making billions of dollars spying on them and selling everything it learned. The Obama people openly bragged about their use of the data they extracted from Facebook to win elections in 2008 and 2012 and these progressive groups were still just fine with it.
Clearly none of what they are complaining about now is an actual problem for these people.
What has them outraged now?
Word got out that Trump got elected in