Facebook Says Breaking Up Facebook Won't Do Any Good (theverge.com) 115
Thursday Facebook's co-founder called for the government to break up the company. Saturday Facebook responded, according to an article shared by Slashdot reader soldersold:
Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president for global affairs and communications wrote the piece, and in it, he agrees with Hughes that "companies should be held accountable for their actions," and that tech companies such as Facebook shouldn't be the ones handling all of the "important social, political and ethical questions" for the internet. But he notes that breaking Facebook up -- as Hughes calls for -- would be the wrong way to go. "The challenges he alludes to," Clegg writes, "including election interference and privacy safeguards, won't evaporate by breaking up Facebook or any other big tech company...." Zuckerberg also responded to the op-ed while in France, saying that "my main reaction was that what [Hughes is] proposing that we do isn't going to do anything to help solve those issues."
Notably, Clegg sidesteps what's probably the op-ed's main focus: Zuckerberg himself. Hughes notes that while the CEO is a good person, he holds far too much power at Facebook, and can't be held accountable there -- he calls the shots. "The government must hold Mark accountable," Hughes wrote.
The article also notes that Clegg "pushed back" against the argument that Facebook is a dominant monopoly, by "saying that its revenue only makes up 20 percent of the advertising marketplace..."
"He goes on to reiterate many of Facebook's regular talking points: that it's been a net-positive for the world by connecting everyone, allowing businesses to thrive and people to raise lots of money for important causes around the world."
Notably, Clegg sidesteps what's probably the op-ed's main focus: Zuckerberg himself. Hughes notes that while the CEO is a good person, he holds far too much power at Facebook, and can't be held accountable there -- he calls the shots. "The government must hold Mark accountable," Hughes wrote.
The article also notes that Clegg "pushed back" against the argument that Facebook is a dominant monopoly, by "saying that its revenue only makes up 20 percent of the advertising marketplace..."
"He goes on to reiterate many of Facebook's regular talking points: that it's been a net-positive for the world by connecting everyone, allowing businesses to thrive and people to raise lots of money for important causes around the world."
He's right it won't do any good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. Nuke it from orbit, its the only way.
Re:He's right it won't do any good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The problem isn't Facebook's size or dominance, it's their business model. Trade and sale of user data needs to be highly restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, what facebook is doing i consider it highly unethical and should be a felony with severe consequences and prosecution
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. The problem isn't Facebook's size or dominance, it's their business model. Trade and sale of user data needs to be highly restricted.
So, what you're saying is people don't have the right to decide for themselves if they want to trade their demographic/usage information in exchange for access to a "free" service? Uncle Sam needs to step in and play nanny, because people are too stupid to have any freedom of choice?
Don't get me wrong, I still think social media is a blight on society, but the moment you start outlawing shit "for the good of the people who don't know any better", you're pushing the needle further towards fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
Now what we are saying is that there needs to be laws in place in case this data gets misused or stolen.
Too lazy to log in, too lazy to realize there are already laws [nacdl.org] about that sort of thing, at least as it relates to "stolen."
If the users believe Facebook violated their stated terms of use agreement, we have a legal remedy for that as well: a class action lawsuit.
Re: (Score:1)
You piece of shit Facebook employee stooges need to stfu.
I've never worked a day in any I.T. related field, but thanks for playing. I simply don't have a problem with marketers giving me free services in exchange for knowing what I had for lunch, and that I'm stuck in traffic on I-4. Seems to me I'm getting the better half of that bargain.
Re: (Score:1)
What I don't want is to refuse to ever touch facebook.com or any property owned by them and still have creepy "shadow profiles" built about me as if I were a user.
No argument from me there. I only agree with allowing companies to monetize personal information when it's consensual.
Re: (Score:1)
'Zuckerberg: To rebut the claim I am too powerful, I will have the former UK Deputy Prime Minister publicly disavow his prior anti-monopoly stance (now that he is paid by me) and promise to meet with other world leaders to painstakingly tell them what regulation suits me best.'
As interpreted by Zephyr Teachout
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
In other news (Score:1)
The fox was asked whether it would do any good to close and lock the hen house door.
The fox said no, it wouldn't help anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they were allowed, they just didn't get to call the shots.
Into what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Break up Facebook into what? Split off Instagram? WhatsApp? Oculus? That won't make a dent. It's, mainly, one thing. A lot of people use it. They really haven't forced people to use it, and there are plenty of alternatives, including not using it at all. If they've violated their privacy notices or federal regulations, fine them and move on.
Re:Into what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The monopoly power isn't the direct problem, but the fact that there are alternatives is pretty much irrelevant. If all your friends are on Facebook, and you want to reach them, well, those alternatives are pretty worthless.
The problem is Facebook's behavior. In attempting to monetize their user base, they've opened themselves up to an unlimited array of fradulent actors - including Facebook itself (when it advertises products 'suggested becuase your friend likes them'). Something has to be done, when you have a platform reaching billions who, by design, can't tell the difference between honest news reporting, whacko conspiracy theorizing, and outright fraud (I'm like you, and I think we shouldn't vote as an act of protest).
It didn't have to be that way. Facebook could've made shit tons of money simply by advertising to people who were there to communicate with their friends. They still could. But apparently, they can make more by, oh, allowing bots to troll the comments sections on posts, etc. and allowing click-bait sites to profit off of ginned up outrage.
Would breaking up Facebook help? I don't know. But antitrust law is one of the few legal frameworks in place that allow the government to do *anything* about the problem. And maybe a weaker Facebook - with some real competition, would have to provide its users with what they want and not be able to get away with pushing on them what they don't want. Well-crafted regulations might help, but hell if I know what those would look like. For starters, do we really need to give arbitrary, possibly anonymous, users the ability to broadcast mass murders in real time - just because we can? Real time video feeds for your friends might be a nice feature. But real-time broadcasting to the world might not be necessary. Some level of gatekeeping is a good thing. And, you could argue that the Internet backbone is at least as much of a government-provided common good as the airwaves are.
Re: (Score:1)
If all your friends are on Facebook, and you want to reach them, well, those alternatives are pretty worthless.
Yeah, it's really a shame no one ever came up with a way to contact people using some sort of dedicated network for voice and text communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously, you *could* call individual friends, etc. The thing about Facebook is that it allows you to broadcast stuff to *all* your friends - for them to respond to or ignore as they choose, without it being intrusive. Arguably, Google Plus was even better at that - allowing you to define groups of friends/family and narrow your broadcasts when you wanted. But that's the point. Goolge Plus, with big money behind it - and a pre-built user base from YouTube and Gmail still couldn't get over the "no
Re:Into what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're about to share this post with Riceballsan who is on facebook.com:
[ ] it's fine, share it with all these people, I don't care
[ ] Share it with everyone except Riceballsan
[ ] Share it with everyone, and make a different version of it for Riceballsan
[ ] Don't share it at all
Going further:
[ ] Trust Riceballsan and facebook.com from now on
[ ] Ask me again next time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But... you would get updated from Facebook into your diaspora. You'd be in a position to say "share very little with Facebook", yet consume as much as your friends on FB want to share with you.
I agree it's going to be complicated to know where your data has gone. That's already true as FB sells your data to hundreds of other companies, and exposes your data to more still. I'd rather be able to restrict what leaves my chosen social network's servers than have the current situation where it's a matter of "giv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably true, but if you have an account on FB it strengthens their market position still further. Having an account on some other system that gets FB data from your friends doesn't (and instead strengthens the position of the other system at the expense of FB).
I can't see the future any more than anyone else, but once upon a time, there were vendor-specific email services, which got usurped by SMTP and "anyone can run their own". I see all 'social media' as we know it today going the same way - 'posts' an
Re: (Score:1)
Gov services.
A hosting company.
Text messages.
VOIP.
Games.
Politics.
Re: (Score:1)
What a concept, paying for a computer service AC.
anonymity (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dafuq? FaceBook pioneered the "real name online" approach. Before that, pseudonymous (ie, with an online ID like I'm posting now) was the most common. There were ACs in various places, trolling about; but it wasn't a huge impact.
FaceBook requires real names, and now people are just not embarrassed about being trollish.
LOL, oh please (Score:2)
"Facebook Says Breaking Up Facebook Won't Do Any Good"
WRONG.
It would give me with a warm, satisfying feeling so it would, in fact, do at least some good.
Re: (Score:1)
It would give me with a warm, satisfying feeling so it would, in fact, do at least some good.
If we're gonna break up companies for the crime of being too big and universally loathed, how about we break up the banking industry, the cable companies, the insurance industry, and Walmart?
Personally, Facebook is pretty low on my list of businesses I care one way or another about.
Re: (Score:2)
Banking has lots of competition, and anybody with enough investment funds can start a new bank and compete.
Maybe you hate your bank, but that doesn't mean I hate my bank. My bank treats me well, because there are a lot of choices. Some small percent of banks specialize in providing good service, and target customers who care about that.
Other banks specialize in having lots of ATMs, and their customers know they won't get good service.
Still other banks specialize in making business managers feel important, a
Re: (Score:1)
Banking has lots of competition, and anybody with enough investment funds can start a new bank and compete.
If you believe that, try getting a loan with blemished credit. You'll quickly discover there may be lots of banks, but very little actual competition.
Unlike Facebook, you can use a different bank than your friends and family, and it makes no difference to your lives.
Facebook is like cable TV. You may feel left out by not having it, but it is not an essential service. There are plenty of alternatives for posting pictures/statuses, and communicating with family and friends (SMS/MMS/iMessage, e-mail, old school voice calls, etc.).
I don't shop at Wally World, if you shop there, that's a personal problem. I pay 2% more at another store for products that are 5% better.
You pay more money to avoid having to shop at Walmart, and don't see that as a hint that some
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! I don't want to bank at a bank that would give you a loan if you have bad credit.
I want to bank at a bank that treats good customers well, not a bank that loses money because they're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, their desire to be broken up into parts that are still a viable business might lead them to sign a giant Consent Decree with a bunch of terms and conditions that would, in fact, do a lot of good.
So simply "breaking them up" wouldn't help. But having a future Department of Justice engage in the entire process of breaking them up, that might actually do a lot of good.
In other news (Score:1)
Don't stop there (Score:2)
Zuckerberg “is a good person”? (Score:4, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg himself. Hughes notes that while the CEO is a good person
Zuckerberg is not a good person, based on his past actions, and based on the way people around him act. Facebook is a cesspit of backstabbing.
A reasonable conclusion here is that Hughes doesn't recognize it, because he is just as bad as Zuckerberg.
Natural Monopoly (Score:4)
Social media is a natural monopoly - there are lots of reasons people want to join sites that already have lots of other people.
even if FB were broken up successfully, the problems of social bubbles would continue - or maybe even become worse. We might end up with "conservative facebook", "libertarian facebook", "progressive facebook" etc, with even more isolation and hostility between social groups.
All the small companies will still sell personal data, so I don't see how that improves either.
It seems to me that a breakup is both difficult to achieve, and doesn't really solve any problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is a natural monopoly - there are lots of reasons people want to join sites that already have lots of other people.
This is something that I wish got a bit more mention, when these subjects come up. Most of the bigshots that are calling for the breakup of Facebook, are actually calling for the breakup of all the separate products that Facebook has acquired over the years. While those products may share significant resources on the back-end, they're very much completely separate things as far as the end users are concerned.
Painfully carving these products back out into separate companies (which would actually hurt those p
Re: (Score:2)
If they bought those other things because those other things were threatening to take over as the natural monopoly, then splitting them back off would indeed restore the potential for competition. With them under one roof, they can just be separate niches that never compete.
Remember, before Facebook was MySpace, and before MySpace was GeoCities. When the natural monopoly is based on social fads, it isn't naturally long-term; it should randomly be replaced, suddenly, at various times as public whims vary.
By
EMail is a natural monopoly (Score:2)
Everybody wants to be able to email other people and so you had better be using the same email company as most other people.
Wrong.
Amazingly, as an historical accident, EMail became a public standard. I can send an email from GMail to an Outlook server, to my own privately hosted server. Heck, even Apple uses standard email.
This is a strange concept to millenials. Obviously, if your friends use iMessenger (say) then you need to use that to.
Imagine if social media worked like that. My Google account could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that suggests that your memory is floundering and you should look shit up to find out what it was.
Or did you never notice the similarity between "community" and "social network?"
Re: (Score:1)
All the small companies will still sell personal data, so I don't see how that improves either.
The entire concept of "breaking up" an internet-based entity for having a monopoly is lunacy anyway. The bar for starting your own dotcom is still very low. Hell, I own a domain name for my air conditioning business and I haven't done a thing with it in years.
Passing laws against monetizing personal data might sound like the solution, but it would have far-reaching effects on a number of other things that are also "free". Pretty much everything Google does, for example.
Re: (Score:1)
"conservative facebook"
They will never accept that. They want to be on the popular platforms where they can recruit people.
They say they want free speech and open debate. But they don't want it on Gab, they want it on Twitter. Gab exists, but it's not an acceptable substitute for them. It has to be Twitter, it has to be where their targets are.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no solution except for the upcoming mad max times.
Sure. (Score:2)
And they're right. (Score:2)
Facebook Says Breaking Up Facebook Won't Do Any Good
The problem isn't entirely Facebook. It's people who think the internet should be used to be a complete uncivil jackass whom can spew whatever he/she wants at whomever with no consequences, ever.
The problem is the SAME goddamn problem we have on MMO support forums: A very loud and obnoxious collection of discontents whom will never be happy, and seem to exist for the sole purpose of making the rest of us wanna kill ourselves.
Eliminating Facebook isn't going to eliminate this class of people. Breaking it
Re: (Score:2)
He may be right and it won't do any good (Score:1)
but al least it will stop Mark Zuberburg the smug git from becoming Emperor God King of Mankind,
That has to count for something.
Something for Free? (Score:2)
I agree (Score:2)
Breaking Facebook up wouldn't accomplish much.
Dropping a nuke on it, on the other hand, ...
Breakup worked so well for Ma Bell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In regards to "SpFling", Firefox says:
Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to spfling.com. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.