Leaked Zuckerberg Audio Reveals Facebook's Plan To Sue the US Government If Elizabeth Warren Tries To Break Up Big Tech (gizmodo.com) 239
"So there might be a political movement where people are angry at the tech companies or are worried about concentration or worried about different issues and worried that they're not being handled well. That doesn't mean that, even if there's anger and that you have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies ... I mean, if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. I mean, that's not the position that you want to be in when you're, you know, I mean ... it's like, we care about our country and want to work with our government and do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone's going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.
In a statement, Warren said on Tuesday, "What would really "suck" is if we don't fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy."
Are you part of the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are against Zuckerberg but have a Facebook account anyway, you are part of the problem.
Re: Are you part of the problem? (Score:2)
I have one, but it's only because there's no why to delete your profile. I deleted all the post and likes, but the profile remains.
Re:Are you part of the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I created an account to access my school's computer science group.
Am I evil too?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not evil but, you're still part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I created an account to access my school's computer science group.
Am I evil too?
If the FB group is your school's, the school is evil and should not receive any government funding, subsidies, or special tax breaks or legal protections, plus you and the others should transfer out to another college/uni.
f it's the students' and not the school's, then yes, you and the other students are evil, especially now when there are alt-tech alternatives available that don't attempt mass social engineering and/or political/ideological censoring of ideas and opinions.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please. You might end up buying a Playstation over an Xbox because all your friends did but it's stretching the definition of "forced" to the ridiculous. I'm one of those reluctant users - or at least I have a profile to answer RSVPs and get birthday greetings - but nobody held a gun to my head. For a long time I cared enough to not use Facebook, I didn't really care enough to help support any alternatives to Facebook because meh who needs it.
I think that's got to be why they won, basic social media seem
Re: (Score:2)
Business / Community Pages.
That is why my wife still has her personal account on FaceBook... can't convince her to give up the access FaceBook provides.
Not until FaceBook becomes MySpace or LinkedIn will she think about abandoning it.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm... I agree with the mod and your assessment of why many people (including me) use Facebook.
I can share my solution approach. When I decided that Facebook was wasting too much of my time, I made a rule to limit my daily usage of Facebook. I actually put a timer next to the computer, and I start it as soon as I visit Facebook. When it goes off, I have to stop, but normally the awareness of the timer is sufficient to get me to finish before it goes off.
Bonus side effect, though I can't explain it. My motiv
Re: (Score:2)
Read what alvinrod wrote (post #59256904), above.
35 year old man stuck in a teenage girl's brain (Score:5, Insightful)
"when you're, you know, I mean ... it's like,"
Umm no I don't know. That's what language is for to, you know, like, convey a coherent thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's [youtube.com] the soundbite you're looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of this one [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we have an audio recording if you sitting through a long Q&A session to make sure you don't fumble your words ever while trying to put massive concepts into simple words?
Re:35 year old man stuck in a teenage girl's brain (Score:5, Funny)
He was clearly just trying to sound presidential...
Re: (Score:2)
I had a wx station chief that broke me of that habit in less than a week.
I was new to the forecasting game. When I'd be briefing the weather, he'd stand with a little hand tally counter. Every time I hemmed, hawed or tapdanced I got a click. Then he'd tell me how many uhhs I had that brief.
Within I week I could do a briefing even to four-stars and not sound like an inept amateur.
That was 25+ years ago and I still do'nt uuhh ummm like well...
This is news? (Score:2)
Obviously they will fight that. I would expect nothing less.
I'm not sure "breaking up" Facebook is a good answer. Facebook's surveillance is the problem, that's what the government needs to deal with. And I'm not sure it can be done without Facebook being unable to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously they will fight that. I would expect nothing less.
I'm not sure "breaking up" Facebook is a good answer. Facebook's surveillance is the problem, that's what the government needs to deal with. And I'm not sure it can be done without Facebook being unable to continue.
Whats funny is even if she were to win, Presidents don't break companies or industries up. Its literally not within their power. Not sure what bothers me more, that Elizabeth Warren, a supposed Harvard scholar, or Mark Zuckerberg, one of the richest men on Earth, can't for the life of them understand such a simple concept.
Re: This is news? (Score:2)
Umm... because Congress takes presidential elections (especially electoral landslides) as a sign of what they need to do to maintain power. A Warren win will push Congress to enact Warren's policies if she wins by a reasonable margin.
Re: This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if Democrats win both house and Senate. Otherwise we get a stalemate.
You can only do so much when you have to compromise.
Re: This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can only do so much when you have to compromise.
^ THIS is the problem
You can actually do a whole lot when you are open to compromise.
The problem today is there is no compromise.
Re: (Score:3)
So build half a wall or a wall half as tall?
Dangers of too much stalemate? (Score:2)
Only if Democrats win both house and Senate. Otherwise we get a stalemate.
You can only do so much when you have to compromise.
Additional context was basically that Warren would not try to be a dictator, but after Trump, I'm not so sanguine. Actually, I would even extend that feeling to the Senate. McConnell has largely destroyed the legitimacy of the filibuster and the Dems could retaliate by finishing it off.
Having said that, it does seem clear that the system is seriously broken and that there are real problems that cannot be addressed by a government with a "normal" state of "off". Some problems are not going to go away just be
Re: (Score:2)
Whats funny is even if she were to win, Presidents don't break companies or industries up. Its literally not within their power.
It is literally within their responsibilities to appoint the people that do break up companies for violating anti-trust laws.
There is lots of process. But the President is absolutely who sets the policy.
You seem a little confused. Or maybe you were just trying to be clever?
Re: (Score:2)
Whats funny is even if she were to win, Presidents don't break companies or industries up. Its literally not within their power.
It is literally within their responsibilities to appoint the people that do break up companies for violating anti-trust laws.
There is lots of process. But the President is absolutely who sets the policy.
You seem a little confused. Or maybe you were just trying to be clever?
You aren't even remotely correct. President only suggests an AG. The AG is then approved/appointed by the Senate. The AG also has free reign to prosecute or not. The DECISION, you know, the part that actually fucking matters, is made by the Judge if the JURY convicts.
I know right? Due process is such a hard fucking concept for you people.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong and doubling down because you got called out. Of course the President can, through various executive actions, cause to come into effect an anti-trust case against a large company. Of course it goes through the courts, that's what Zuckerberg was saying, that they would fight it.
Facebook is entirely right and such a rabble rouser populist in office would mean they would have to face an existential threat because of course there is no way to "break up", lol, a company like Facebook whose advertis
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I understand liking the man's policies, particularly since they align with your cultural beliefs.
I understand how people can sacrifice their moral beliefs to support him to see those policies enacted.
But do you *really* think he isn't straight up mob-boss level corrupt? How fucking dense can you be?
Sure, all politicians are corrupt to some extent, but DJT blew right past the former benchmarks.
Why the fuck can't you just say, "Ya- he's a fucking idiot who is literally as corrupt as a human can be, but he's doing the shit I want done in government, so I support him."
Re: (Score:3)
The solution might be a privacy requirement that allows citizens to request to be forgotten by tech companies. Meaning they retain NONE of your data, and that includes referral headers from Facebook pixels and the like. This is entirely within the purview of the Federal Government, as we have a right to privacy.
Your ordinary e-commerce store selling candles or whatever can manage that easily. They don't keep much information, and deleting somebody's data is a matter of dropping a row in a database. But Twit
Re: (Score:2)
The only lack of competition one could point to would be for advertisers. Are you really that concerned with the poor scum trying to shove ads down our throats? Fuck them.
So what? Warren says a lot of shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I guess that at least we know which candidate the editors at
Re: (Score:3)
Warren is saying a lot of shit in what appears to be an attempt to get through the primaries. She came out in support of reparations for slavery [reuters.com], decriminalizing border crossings [time.com], and other crap that's just pandering to the far wing of the party. I don't think she'd go through with any of it, or realizes there's no way in hell Congress would let any of that get out of committee, but then again I thought that Trump wouldn't actually try to do half of the ridiculous shit that he was spouting off.
The Dems have to know that most of those policies would get her destroyed in a general election. Even if she dropped them in the general election, the Republicans would just point back to those statements in the primaries and say "If she get's elected this is what she is going to do" and it's going to turn off a lot of center and even wavering right voters.
Re: (Score:2)
"WTF does Hillary have to do with Warren and Sanders? They're as different as .. left and right. "
You missed the point, trash is trash. Just because one piece of trash is different from another piece of trash does not mean that their differences are significant enough to warrant looking past anything other than they are trash.
"Clinton ran as the conservative "status quo" candidate against the far-left, revolutionary Trump, and lost."
Well yea, she trash talked half of the Nation. Sure attack the candidates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Not sure you've been paying attention but he's overseen more gun grabbing (bump stocks) than Obama did and has certainly signaled a willingness to sign more.
You would have to be a complete moron to think he's pro-gun, at best he might try to avoid going too far and pissing off his base.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person who isn't a criminal has a decent shot.
I'd really like to see someone near the middle. Perhaps slightly left leaning.
Denying/ignoring AGW is a deal Breaker.
Re: (Score:3)
"Denying/ignoring AGW is a deal Breaker."
If you are "single issue voter" then why do you even care if someone is near the center? Just vote for whoever lies to you about wanting to address AGW.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty left of center by any normal metric and every time I hear her talk about a wealth tax I want to take my TV and throw it at her. What a mind numbingly stupid unconstitutional, unenforceable blatant pander.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they care about the Constitution anymore... until it suits them to do so.
Most voters are like you, you might have a preferred party but it has left you quite some time ago. I think if most voters would just look at ONLY what their party has done without looking at the other parties to alter their perspective they would wash their hands of their party.
The political parties need opposing parties to keep their peoples attention focused away from their own garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, she and Bernie are pandering to the weird hatred everyone has of rich people. I get jealousy, I even get legitimate criticism but at this point it's pathological. The more you talk about hating rich people the more the rabble loves you.
It also allows them to hand-wave when people ask how they're going to pay for all their giant epic government programs. "blah blah rich people will pay for it blah blah".
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.... income tax, by definition, is a 'wealth tax.' And it is constitutional and you can read the 16th amendment which made income tax legal. And since any amendment to the constitution is legally part of it so you can't say it's unconstitutional because it wasn't part of the original document (common right-wing argument so, I'm nipping it in the bud). The founding fathers new the constitution would require change so, they put a system in place to change it. If you don't like some of the changes, tough
Re: (Score:3)
If she were elected president and proposed it to Congress there's zero chance it would pass, but pretending there was some massive democratic landslide and it did then it would be challenged in court before the ink dried. There's some debate that it could be interpreted as constitutional by a sufficiently sympathetic court except that the current make up of the court makes that very nearly a slam dunk 'unconstitutional' decision.
Assuming that it somehow passed and survived a constitutional challenge then
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the wealth gap is meaningless anyway. If my neighbor who is a billionaire suddenly has his mansion burn down and loses his entire net worth, I am no better off.
Standard of living is what matters. By all means increase taxes as needed to provide a reasonable social safety net, universal health care, etc... but whining about some people not being able to afford as much materialistic shit as some other people is fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a problem. The government cannot tax except where authorized by the constitution. See, politicians raging on cruscades for increased power is a problem historically, because the fools easily grant it.
The People recognized this, so created a government and gave it certain powers, and only those, and made sure to that, to give more power to government, you must get buy in from a supermajority. If it's a good idea, most will think so, not just a transient bare majority.
Look at the idiotic whipsawin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States have property tax powers. The feds do not, and do not have general tax powers.
Indeed, the Constitution is clear government cannot take property without compensation. And compensation for a dollar is a dollar, making it pointless.
Please make your case for a constitutional amendment for the government to seize stuff to help fund runaway spending. We will consider it, and if it not be lacking in wisdom, approve it via suermajority.
Re: (Score:2)
"But if you have money sitting in real property, you are taxed on that wealth every year."
I like to call that a "Government Owned Investments". As long as you are paying for something to keep it... you don't own it. We just like to "say" you own it while actually not letting you "actually" own it.
They need to cut to the chase and get rid of property tax and just tax everyone on equity values. If you are responsible with your money and you save and do not over extend yourself financially then you should h
Re: (Score:2)
Most things that asshat is doing is being done by executive order and can be undone by executive order. What cannot be undone is the damage to the environment or the international cooperation it took decades to build or turning half the world over to those bastions of freedom and democracy, the Chinese. Also, the lasting deficits are probably locked in and hence the future debt problems. All it takes is for the rest of the world to lose confidence in the U.S. ability to control its debt and then the U.S. wo
Re: (Score:2)
"All it takes is for the rest of the world to lose confidence in the U.S. ability to control its debt and then the U.S. won't be able to roll it over, it will come due with a vengeance."
A problem caused by both parties to the extend that the only people that blame one more than the other are just sheeple.
This is what people mean when they tell you that there is no difference between the parties. If the end result is the same, then why are you so concerned about which path we take towards destruction?
Gotta play the game if you want the top job (Score:2)
It's common practice to pander to the party base during the party primaries, and then change emphasis and pander to centrists during the general election. Politicians in both parties do it, and it's probably a necessary strategy in the current system we have, if you want to win the Presidency.
A 100% honest, accurate, and consistent politician rarely gets anywhere in the current system. If you want to reward non-spi
Thank you, Zuck! (Score:5, Funny)
Best campaign add for Elizabeth Warren so far.
Re: (Score:2)
More or less what I was thinking per my longer comment. Enemy of my enemy becomes my friend, though she still isn't my favorite candidate. I guess my favorite is Yang, but it might be "Not Trump".
Intentionally Leaked (Score:3)
The quote looks like it's been intentionally "leaked" to gain sympathy for Facebook....
Re: Intentionally Leaked (Score:2)
More like Zuck is willing to take one for Warren because she already has a deal with him. She has been recorded more than once saying that she has things she has to say in public and then there's real policy. She goes out ragging on Wall St. while having the head of an investment bank host a fundraiser for her at his house in the Hamptons.
Look on YouTube for 'Elizabeth Warren Jimmy Dore Show' for a full accounting. And Dore's a full-bird progressive, not a right winger.
Had you ever been in a position of power ... (Score:2)
then you would know that you cannot always do everything by the book and public-approved. Becauee the public does not do half the shit you have to deal with. The book is not based on reality.
That does not mean somebody is evil, or two-faced, or nefarious. Just that this is beyond the level of explaining that the public can follow. And especially beyond what your enemies and the public will deiberately or our of ignorance will misinterpret to use against you.
So you give them a simplified explanation that fol
Re: Intentionally Leaked (Score:2)
Although I'm pretty sure she won't be popular with Wall Street. The whole reason she is in politics is that she wants to regulate consumer finance.
Re: Intentionally Leaked (Score:2)
Doubtful. Not unless Facebook PR is complete shit at their jobs. Zuckerberg is wildly disliked, while Warren is popular. Pitting Facebook against Warren is a loser PR battle.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote looks like it's been intentionally "leaked" to gain sympathy for Facebook....
Zuck is a drug dealer.
Not sure who he's looking for sympathy from, but it sure as hell isn't the consumer junkie. One hardly has to convince the addict to come get more free product.
What good for Zuck is bad for the rest of us (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to translate (Score:4, Insightful)
Warren: "We're pissed that the right wing has used our weapons against us. It wasn't supposed to happen that way and we're going to make sure that doesn't happen again."
US Government responds: Totally Not Giving A Shit (Score:2)
Not sure why anyone thinks there's a story here. US Government has more money and lawyers than Facebook can afford to spend on. Zuckerberg's going to sue them? Who cares.
Re: (Score:2)
US Government has more money and lawyers than Facebook can afford to spend on.
That is an intuitive idea, but it doesn't always match reality, because the government doesn't spend its entire budget on lawyers. See this, for example [propublica.org], where people get away with cheating on their taxes because they hire more expensive lawyers and accountants.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the funny part is, breaking Facebook up would involve the government suing Facebook. They don't need to, or even get to, sue to try to stop it. A counter-suit would need to be a different issue.
He didn't even understand whatever presentation his legal team gave on the subject.
Responsibility to protect... (Score:2, Insightful)
Warren misses the real problem:
A corporation has only one responsibility: extract the maximal amount of money from society in any possible way.
Until that is fixed, no solution will help fix the symptoms of the broken system.
There are already laws against that. (Score:2)
There are already laws against usury, fraud, theft, robbery, etc. And psychopathy is already known as a dangerous mental illness.
The problem is that they somehow aren's applied to business leaders and profit makers.
Also, with these type, you'd need a firewall-style whitelist of practically totalitarian regulation, not an always incomplete blacklist, as clearly nothing else will stop them from staying in their psychopathic mindset and trying to circumvent your rules for human behavior.
The basic mindest and c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only a problem absent effective market regulation.
It still leaves the problem of consolidation that was undertaken only to prevent competition. Breaking up those consolidated companies, so that the parts can compete, solves a bunch of problems. Not all problems. Just a bunch of problems.
Re: Responsibility to protect... (Score:3)
The way you fix that is you don't change that, you regulate abusive actions so they are unprofitable. That is why regulatory capture is a bad thing. It is the real world equivalent of a robot rebellion, although the relentless amoral machines are legal contraptions, not mechanical.
One more reason to vote for Warren. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I'd be under the delusion that plebes would vote, by making cross, let alone control who's in power.
As could be seen with W. Bush / Darth Cheney, Trump, and Sanders.
She's the sanest candidate in a loong time, from my perspective.
Let's see how the neocon corporate fascists ruin everything yet again. And how the blackeyers will keep refusing to face that reality and learn from it...
Re: (Score:2)
...She's the sanest candidate in a loong time, from my perspective.
Let me clarify exactly what we're dealing with here; a politician making campaign promises.
Tell me again how this is "one more reason" to believe the bullshit she's selling.
It's not just ignorant or stupid to assume she's being honest with campaign claims. It's downright insane.
Re: (Score:3)
This comes as a surprise to.... who, exactly? (Score:2)
Seriously... I like Warren on most issues, but her jumping on the tired old hipper-than-thou "nerds/geeks/dot-commers/techies are the devil" bandwagon is pretty souring. And it's extra-ridiculous to see slashdot, of all sources, selling that line.
How is anybody surprised by Zuck's intentions here? Has there been a corporation in the history of history that hasn't lawyered up and fought when it found itself in the crosshairs of some politician's enemies list? Hell, even taking any emotional stake out of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. You named yourself after a menu item at Taco Bell.
I am totally not surprised that you associate "Zuck" with nerds, but real nerds hate that fucking prick, same as everybody else.
And his reaction should be to start fixing the negative behaviors that are at the root of the backlash.
Suing the regulator (Score:2)
Suing, or threatening to sue a regulator is not what should be happening in a mature democracy, that is it is what happens in dystopian SciFi Plutocracies [wikipedia.org].
The staggering thing will still be posters that will defend that behaviour and call me a communist, something else, the silencing of political divergence, that should not be happening in a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
Better the devil we know? (Score:2)
Just wondering why there are no comments modded "Informative". The artificial shortage of mod points (again) or a situation where everyone already knows too much about Facebook?
So should I try to fill the gap with a short list of Facebook-related books and capsule reviews thereof? Easily done. Turned out I only have four that are easy to find.
Becoming Facebook: The 10 Challenges That... by Mike Hoefflinger sings sycophantic praises, but not very memorably.
The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story... by Davi
Huh??? (Score:2)
"repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy."
Ummm, Congresswomman Warren, that's YOUR responsibility... Facebook and other businesses have no such responsibility. I would posit that they have a profit motivation to do so as a general rule, but it's not a requirement. Just like they have no requirement to be politically neutral, however you define that.
I'm no fan of Facebook or their business practices, but this one is a bit much.
Yeah, right (Score:2)
Big tech just loves them some Dems. Why if Facebook were broken up (into what pieces?), some of those pieces might not support the left! (Well, they probably all would, but why take the risk?)
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole episode were a sham. Big chieftess Warren gets to act tough, nothing continues to happen to Facebook no matter what transpires.
My guess: Ignorant of technology (Score:2)
Re:You know what else would suck? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government declaring Facebook to be illegal and having to be closed forever.
You have an odd definition of "suck". I think you have it confused with "awesome".
Re: You know what else would suck? (Score:2)
Well, suck for zuckerfuck. In his mind his is the only opinion worth considering. The rest of us are just sheep waiting to be groupthink-ed into compliance. âoeYou provide the story and I will provide the warâ - and so goes the history of the USS Maine
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Twitter (Score:4, Informative)
Twitter causes far more civil unrest and damage than Facebook. Every day Twitter picks some new story for people to outrage over.
Re: (Score:2)
There are Facebook groups/pages that specialize in the same thing. And I've known people who basically sit on their asses all day re-sharing this "outrage content" as if somehow they have a "platform" from which to "accomplish" something.
How much of this you see probably depends on who you follow and/or are friends with. Its entirely possible to be inundated by it, or ignorant to it, on either platform.
Re:You know what else would suck? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd give you an extra mod point if I ever had one to give, but it would be "funny" as in true rather than "insightful". Slashdot should display all mods more visibly. Then again, it's also too brief for much insight.
Then again, just shutting down Facebook would not solve the underlying problems that led to the monstrous corporate cancer. Warren's proposed solution of breaking up Facebook seems more likely to help, but it depends on how it's done (and it shouldn't be limited to Facebook (obviously)). Specifically, the key question is whether the breakup increases our privacy or merely defines new angles to attack it.
I still think the key involves tweaking the business model in a way that Facebook (or its smaller descendant companies) would have a positive economic interest in protecting our personal information, with more profit for good behavior and lower profit for abusing our privacy.
To me that means the key is portability of our personal information. If I don't like Facebook then I should be able to take my ball (of my personal information) and go home (to my private Diaspora server or some other company). (Actually, I regard Diaspora as a zombie project, but the idea was good.)
Unfortunately the rub is that "possession is 9 points of the law", and right now Facebook possesses too much personal information. If Zuckerberg didn't welcome the power of owning so much personal information then he wouldn't have created that monster in the first place--but someone else would have.
And in conclusion, judging by her enemies, Warren has just risen in my esteem. I still like Yang better, but she's probably #2 now...
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, well, I'm old enough to remember before there was "the internet".....and I've never experience the troubles you have keeping up with friends.
I mean REAL friends, not just onl
Re: (Score:2)
Real friends are great and awesome.
But it also is nice to have an answer to "hey, what ever happened to Joey in high school?" when one gets nostalgic.
Also it's nice that it's easy for relatives we don't see that often to see what my kids are doing these days, or seeing what my nieces are up to. Or to join a group of people who like a specific author's books, when there's maybe 1 other guy in my town who likes them that I'd never find.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never found my life lacking for lack of social media accounts.
Like I said, I have a ton of friends, real ones that occupy my time, and I tend to go out, and make new ones locally.
I've I've not ever kept up with "Joey
Re: (Score:3)
How does it feel living under a government, elected by people, who passed laws allowing the breakup of monopolistic market entities, and empowered the executive to enforce those laws through the judiciary? Well, it feels like free government.
Re: You know what else would suck? (Score:2)
That would be so positive for society, I think we'd have to go back to the 21st amendment to find something comparably beneficial to us all.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, breaking up Facebook is not enough.
I say we nuke Facebook from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same way you break up Bell Telephone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do fucking what? Not kneel down to the Queen? What the fuck do you think this country is, is he supposed to beg and scrape to be allowed to continue to run his business?
Bunch of nerds don't like Facebook so suddenly it's cool if the government just steps in and starts mucking with them, because of course the government always stops at controlling the things we don't like and not the things we do.
Re: (Score:2)
That's cute, the way you think everyone uses your parasitic services.
Do it, asshole! (Score:2)
If everything is public, nothing is (relevant).
That is the oldest lesson of Sun-Tsu: Never push your enemy into a corner. If there is nothing to lose, all your leverage vanishes, and they become invincible and unstoppable. (Unless you kill *all* of them, of course. But if you leave nobody to tell tales, you will find nobody to be scared of you.)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop whining about how you don't like Apple, they are nowhere near a monopoly on anything. Using a "break'em all up" approach only turns the tech industry over to the Chinese. You won't mind learning Chinese, yes?