Zuckerberg Goes Off-Script, Blasts Apple and Google in Testimony (bloomberg.com) 118
During today's testimony before a Congressional antitrust panel, Mark Zuckerberg went off-script a little bit pointing out how Facebook lags behind a number of competitors, including Alphabet, Amazon.com and Apple. From a report: Zuckerberg isn't hesitating to use some sharp elbows, pointing out that Amazon is the fastest-growing advertising platform and Google is the biggest. "In many areas, we are behind our competitors," Zuckerberg said. "The most popular messaging service in the U.S. is iMessage. The fastest growing app is TikTok. The most popular app for video is YouTube. The fastest growing ads platform is Amazon. The largest ads platform is Google. And for every dollar spent on advertising in the U.S., less than ten cents is spent with us."
advertising platform (Score:1)
Do we still regulate advertising?
Coulda fooled me...
Re:advertising platform (Score:5, Informative)
Do we still regulate advertising?
Coulda fooled me...
"Traditional media" is still regulated (radio/TV/magazines, etc.) but, you know, Facebook and the like aren't "media" or "publishers", so they don't need regulation apparently (says the Zuck).
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid you say "Fuck" however, nevermind the 1st.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations for traditional media are extremely limited. Cigarettes, cartoons/children’s programming and alcohol have some restrictions.
That is rather where it ends.
There are certainly some nuances for paid advertisements, but that is why they advertise paid ad.
If anything the internet has stricter regulations on content.
So what do you feel is being violated?
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
You can't advertise a place to rent that excludes Jews or Black folks or LGBTQ+. Newspapers can't. TV stations can't. If you're Facebook you can. And they have.
It could have just been an oversight, right? Just a UI glitch? Nope. They were in no hurry to fix the "bug".
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Re:Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't advertise a place to rent that excludes Jews or Black folks or LGBTQ+. Newspapers can't. TV stations can't. If you're Facebook you can. And they have.
It could have just been an oversight, right? Just a UI glitch? Nope. They were in no hurry to fix the "bug".
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
No one placed an advertisement that excluded anyone. That link of your does not support what you said. I don't know why you got modded up.
What you said happened: The advertisers placed an ad that said "no Jews/Blacks/etc".
What actually happened: The advertisers specified the demographics of the target, which excluded many other demographics
Explain to me how that differs from traditional advertising? Are advertisers excluding women when they place ads in Men's Health? Are they excluding Jews when they place ads in Pork Monthly? When they advertise places to rent in the local city paper which is distributed only to the locals (who are almost all white), is that racist?
Now maybe the advertisers are racist, but when you specifically go out of your way and take the extra effort to spin what happened into some warped and dishonest version so that you get to virtue signal for internet points, then you are morally worse than those advertisers targeting a certain wealthy demographic.
One day the mob will come for you too.
Re: (Score:1)
> Are advertisers excluding women when they place ads in Men's Health?
If an advertiser were to go to Hearst and say they want to advertise real estate for rent but only run the ads in Men's Health, Hearst very well may be liable under the same theory. Except of course Hearst knows what the hell they are doing and wouldn't take the ad buy!
Facebook has a market cap of $665B. They can afford to hire an attorney or two to make sure they comply with the fair housing act.
The OP got it right with "They were in no hurry to fix the bug." They were informed multiple times an
Re: (Score:2)
> Are advertisers excluding women when they place ads in Men's Health?
If an advertiser were to go to Hearst and say they want to advertise real estate for rent but only run the ads in Men's Health, Hearst very well may be liable under the same theory.
You're talking horseshit. There is no requirement in law that advertisements for rentals cannot appear in specialist reading matter. If you think there is, post your source.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they are the zealots of mass consumption, when it comes to burning the planet to the ground, they are the religious fundamentalists, doing more to push mindless consumption than any other corporations on the planet and all whilst hiding behind greener than green PR=B$. So we have climate change, diminishing resources, excessive pollution and the biggest pushers of mass consumption, doing it for profit, without the single slightest consideration of the harm they are causing, all pretend how great they a
Hot MILFS in your area... (Score:2)
youtubers are actually regulated (Score:1)
they can, and do, get in trouble for posting videos when they have been paid to promote something and they don't reveal that fact in the video.
same goes for instagrammers.
I think its the FCC that does it.
almost ten cents of every dollar?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing to gleam for that statement is that (if he is right and Facebook is behind Amazon and Google in ad revenue) approx 45% (or more) of all advertising is spent on only three platforms. I guess he does state that Amazon is the fastest growing ad platform so maybe only Google is above Facebook but that would only make his statement all the more ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I get Facebook is less than 10%, Google is more than 10% and Amazon could be anything, it's just growing the fastest.
Fastest Growing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing GP is assuming that Amazon is more than FB and that Google is still more than both, so it's not a far fetched assumption to go 9.94% (because Zuck would use the rounding to his favor) to FB, 10-15% to Amazon, 15%+ to Google.
I'm operating under the assumption that Zuck didn't mean all ad revenue, merely internet ad revenue (still ridiculous).
Re: (Score:3)
They do did 35-40 billion US ad sales total last year.
The online market was 120b or so.
The total market I see numbers between 260 and 390.
The chart that had online at 120b had total at 260b, and was predicting it to be closer to half of all advertising this year. I had NO IDEA online advertising was such a huge percent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll admit that I was a bit loose with the numbers but let's assume that Facebook is slightly less than 10%. We can also assume that Google is greater than 10% and I also assumed that Amazon was higher than Facebook but lower than Google. Using that assumption I assumed that Facebook was close enough to 10% to use 10%. If Amazon is higher than that and Google is higher still I just pulled a number higher than 30% but less than 50%. I also assume that Google probably has significantly higher ad revenues
Re: (Score:2)
A quick Google says the US ad market is roughly 300 billion, and Facebook's revenue on it in the US is 9 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure where you got that $9B number -- in January of this year, Facebook reported [fb.com] $20.7B of advertising revenue in just the fourth quarter of 2019, and $69.7B for the entire year. Zuckerberg probably meant exactly what he said.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're correct, it's right around 10% and probably a little over.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/223280/facebooks-quarterly-revenue-in-the-us-and-canada-by-segment/#:~:text=Facebook%3A%20quarterly%20revenue%20in%20the,Canada%202
Re: (Score:2)
$300B isn't a market cap (short for market capitalization, the current market price for shares multiplied by number of shares authorized), it is total US advertising expenditure per year. And the almost $70B is worldwide revenue for FB, not just US revenue. So if FB gets about 40% of their revenue in the US, that works out to about 10% of the $300B. I think 40% is a reasonable fraction to assume for their home country.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I wish I had problems like that. The guy gets rich sleeping and he’s still complaining, the zucker.
Re: (Score:1)
That seems an unlikely number.
Americans spend about $10.7 trillion per year.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/ar... [mentalfloss.com]
Facebook's annual revenue is just under $71bn.
Even if ALL of facebook's revenue was from Americans (we know it isn't), that's just over a half of 1% of US consumer spending.
Edit: https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
It seems that FB makes about half its ad revenue from OUSA sources, so we're talking about Americans spend about 0.25% of their money on FB. Still a huge number, but nowhere near 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
The topic at hand here is ad spending not normal consumer spending.
Blasts, seriously? (Score:3)
"And they're big dumb poo-poo heads too."
Actualy, what better way to prove that they're all in a properly competitive market, than to complain that your competitors are competing and to describe the areas in which they're ahead?
It's a ruse (Score:3, Interesting)
Actualy, what better way to prove that they're all in a properly competitive market, than to complain that your competitors are competing and to describe the areas in which they're ahead?
They're all colluding with each other to give the messaging that they don't need regulation/investigation because "look, we're all healthily competing with each other!".
Re:It's a ruse (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that they're competing with each other, the problem is that nobody can compete with them. The next worst thing after a monopoly is a cartel.
Re: (Score:1)
Cartel (oligopolies) do not compete. That is kind of the definition and modus operandi of a cartel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The named corps really aren't competing. They each have different segments of the market, and people use multiple services.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't really competing with each other. Google tried to make a social network and it failed. Facebook doesn't have an online marketplace or giant warehouses like Amazon does.
Does anyone buy that bullshit about YouTube being the biggest video site, as if Facebook is even trying to compete with them? Facebook doesn't have a dedicated video site and video quality is a joke, and you can't monetize Facebook videos either.
Oh sure, they all sell ads, but in vastly different areas.
Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
So Facebook is the second fastest growing, and second largest ad platform in the US, and the second most popular video service, and the second most popular messaging service, and it has almost 10% market share of *advertising in general* in the US, oh and one company is #1 in 2 out of those 3 industries that Facebook is #2 in. No problem here!
It's a shame it took so long to seriously consider breaking up the Silicon Valley megacorps, and it's an even bigger shame that it's being considered for Trumpian dumbshit reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
it's an even bigger shame that it's being considered for Trumpian dumbshit reasons.
How else did you every think it was going to happen, besides annoying politicians?
If you are playing the long game on this you would be fully supporting Trump because lots more far reaching good actions are a direct result of his being president, precisely because he is who he is - and who his enemies are.
... he is who he is - and who his enemies are ... what does that even mean? I'm pretty sure Trump's enemies are all way smarter than that thin skinned venal old windbag, especially Xi Jinping and Putin and the idea that Trump is playing some kind of five dimensional game of geo-political chess is a joke, nothing more, just a bad joke.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure Trump's enemies are all way smarter than that thin skinned venal old windbag
Yes of course they are, and it's their reactions to what Trump does that make it so useful Trump stay in power.
Trump is an oscillating force for change,
I find it amusing so many on Slashdot cannot see the simple truth of this, it doesn't rely on one liking Trump at all. It's all a question of human and political dynamics.
But if you can't see it, sorry to say the future is going to be a pretty surprising place for y
Re:What other path? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're basically saying that Trump's chaos agitates change, but most of the change - the things he's actually trying to do - is profoundly negative. Very little good has come of it compared to all of the damage he's done. The only way it can seem positive to someone who doesn't actually support Trumpian politics (which, in as few words as possible, could be called fascist authoritarian capitalist-utilitarianism with radical social conservatism) is if you enjoy the destruction of establishment systems more than the actual improvement of living conditions for everyday people. This is politics focused on grievance and vengeance rather than any sort of progress, which may only leave crumbs of progress in a sea of destruction. And you're telling me to look at those crumbs and see it as a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Trump's enemies are all way smarter than that thin skinned venal old windbag
Yes of course they are, and it's their reactions to what Trump does that make it so useful Trump stay in power.
Trump is an oscillating force for change,
I find it amusing so many on Slashdot cannot see the simple truth of this, it doesn't rely on one liking Trump at all. It's all a question of human and political dynamics.
But if you can't see it, sorry to say the future is going to be a pretty surprising place for you.
Still not seeing a reason to join the Trump cult and fall to my knees in worship. The only change he represents is the complete and utter destruction of America's position as a superpower through the amazing magic power of ... stupid. No matter the noises they make, China is loving this guy. China advances while the US is busy owning the libs. I just got through watching a documentary featuring a bunch of Asian tech analysts, politicians and business leaders arguing that while they don't like China all that
Re: (Score:2)
How else did you every think it was going to happen, besides annoying politicians?
I was hoping it would happen because a different, less annoying politician might notice the damaging effects of their monopolism, rather than a fascist simply trying to reduce their power as part of an attempt to score points in a stupid-ass culture war by empowering white nationalist rhetoric.
If you are playing the long game on this you would be fully supporting Trump because lots more far reaching good actions are a direct result of his being president, precisely because he is who he is - and who his enemies are.
LOLWUT? What's his long game? The closest thing to a long game he seems to have is becoming tinpot dictator of the US and enriching himself no matter how many mass graves or child prison camps he has to fill up or wha
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you "Orange Man Bad" people are going to get what you deserve.
Nirvana? Eternal bliss? Free cookies? Visits from the Swedish Bikini Team? Cool, being a generally decent person doesn't normally get rewarded that well. Bring on what we deserve!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an American? I think that might have been a bit of a surprise to Charles Bixby when he arrived in Boston in 1786 and settled in the Vermont wilderness, to find that his offspring 234 years later still aren't Americans. My last foreign-born ancestor was my great-great-grandfather Pierre Bolle, who walked across the frozen Saint Marys river from his native Ontario to work in the Calumet copper mines in the 1890s. How long does my family have to be here for you to consider me an American?
More amusin
Re: (Score:2)
My last foreign-born ancestor was my great-great-grandfather Pierre Bolle, who walked across the frozen Saint Marys river from his native Ontario to work in the Calumet copper mines in the 1890s.
great, it never changes, god damn illegals crossing the river to steal our jerbs.
Re: Translation (Score:2)
Cross a river? It is much harder now, most of us migrants have to fly on a plane for hours to get jobs in merica! Have you seen how close the seats are from each other?
Re: (Score:2)
Well guess what? This is what your "Orange Man Bad" rhetoric gets you. Eventually it is so shrill it is impossible to ignore the bias. Maybe if you guys toned it down a little, Trump wouldn't be in a position to get re-elected. Trump is an idiot, but you "Orange Man Bad" people are going to get what you deserve.
So you finally figured out that the orange man is a moron? Well better late than never I suppose. That having been said you "brown man bad" people got a whole eight years of shrieking "brown man bad" at the top of your voice so you Trumpistanis still owe us another four years of shrieking "orange man bad", pointing out every moronic thing he does and making copious and mean spirited fun of his stupidity on late night TV shows planet wide. If you don't like that, don't vote for a moron next time.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, nice one. *shrug* Look on the bright side, it'll be DECADES before we have to hear any more BS about "running the country like a business".
Re: (Score:2)
You mean other then the fact that it is and has been running like a business for many years. When you hear the phrase "American Interests" it always has to do with our corporations well-being. We've been corporate run since at least 1945 but probably before that as well.
Why else would we have the convoluted tax system we have? Why else did the Democrats give us medical insurance instead of taxpayer healthcare? Why else did the Republicans pass that horrible tax bill that mostly just hurt people?
Because our
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, is the orange man not bad? I've yet to see that argued in any coherent way.
What I do see is a massive amount of butthurt any time he gets called out. It's as if we're supposed to ignore having that vaginal secretion elevated to ruler of the free world. Tone it down, guys! Nothing of consequence going on here... just a bunch of complainers.
I've noticed people that idolize him have similar bitch tendencies. So any criticism of him, they take as a personal affront - and that's why criticism is not allowed. But that will never, ever make orange man unbad.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think most of his supporters say "orange man bad" when you point out a legitimate policy you take issue with, or reprehensible thing that he said or did. If you mention detention camps, sexual assault claims, or health issues you will get what-about-isms and denials.
It's when people reference clearly false, out of context, or ridiculous items (like Trump had TWO scoops of ice cream but only gave everyone else ONE) that the "orange man bad" response is drawn up.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary lost. It's time for you to get over it.
I don't get why Trump supporters always bring up Hillary when someone criticizes their idol. Yes, she lost. She's no longer relevant. Time for the orange man to stand or fall on his own, without using the shade of Hillary to prop him up.
Re: (Score:1)
*shrug* I'm independent. Thank god Hillary lost. Too bad Trump won, he's just as bad as her.
Facebook own 10% of the advertising market? (Score:2)
Holy shit, to think that Zuckerberg complains that his company isn't a dangerous monopoly when they own 10% of the advertising market for a country with 370million people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So Trump has probably only killed 300k people so far,
Emphasis mine. While I really do appreciate some accurate numbers here, I think you put an extra word in that sentence...
Re: (Score:3)
Holy shit, to think that Zuckerberg complains that his company isn't a dangerous monopoly when they own 10% of the advertising market for a country with 370million people.
It's a bit more than the advertising market for 326 million people. According to Business Insider in 2018 they had 20% of the global advertising market so unless something has changed in a major way for their advertising business, Zuckerberg was lying. On top of that Facebook is basically a monopoly in their particular segment of the social media market. Given their ubiquity on the social media scene, the fact that vast numbers of people get all their news from Facebook posts, and if they wanted to, Faceboo
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if that's the case that's almost certainly why he specified that they have less than 10% of the advertising market in the US rather than just saying they have less
That is how successful people think (Score:5, Interesting)
People who think "Oh yeah, no need to change anything - we're doing good enough," get passed up and become not-so successful people. That's why I consigned myself to never growing beyond running a small business. I can't deal with the stress, worry, and paranoia needed to push myself to really become successful. I have a friend who owns a $20 million company, and the reason he can cope with it is because he enjoys that stress. He likes getting only 4 hours of sleep, spending every waking moment reading up on what the industry and his competitors are doing, so he can try to outmaneuver them. He considers it fun. His wife was telling me when they went on vacation, she was constantly having to pull their kids' phones and tablets out of his hands because he kept trying to use them to do work. To him, work was more fun than vacation.
There was a telling interview with Shawn Fanning (creator of Napster - the first distributed music file sharing program). He said when he first got the idea for distributed file sharing, he coded for days straight with minimal sleep because he was paranoid that someone else with the same idea would release a program before he could. That's the kind of personality you need to really drive yourself to succeed. Lots of people probably had the idea for something like Facebook, but Zuckerberg had the personality to make it happen.
Heck, my $20 million friend told me the story of how he started his company, and I realized that *I* had had the same idea a couple years before him. He sells advertising space on generic domains like patiofurniture.com (just an example, dunno if that's really his). Back around 1995, I was in grad school and my labmates and I wanted to go see a movie. Back then, you needed to check a newspaper or call the movie theater to get the movie playtimes. But there was this new thing called the World Wide Web, and I wondered if maybe the theater had listed their playtimes on a website. I searched for a bit but didn't find anything. Then I had the fleeting thought - I could register movies.com and set up a website listing movie playtimes, and sell space on the site to movie theaters, thus rendering playtimes in newspapers and recorded phone messages obsolete. That thought danced around in my head for about 10 seconds. But then I decided I was an engineering grad student, I really needed to work on my thesis, something like this really should be done by someone in the movie industry, and I really needed to get going because my friends were waiting for me so we could head to the theater. And I never thought about it again.
In contrast, when my friend got the same idea, he was a student working on a medical degree. Despite his already-full schedule, he set aside time so he could learn how the Internet, domains, websites, and hosting services worked, and taught himself how to code his own websites. He drove himself to do everything he could to bring this idea to fruition. I OTOH came up with every excuse I could think of to give up on the idea. That's what separates successful people from not-successful people - the drive to improve and make things happen.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said he was a monopoly on advertising - he's playing some clever misdirection here. I doubt it was "off script" at all.
Just because he's "only" 10% of all US advertising doesn't mean he's not running a monopoly. If you want a social web site, sadly, Facebook is about the only real game in town. If you want to advertise to facebook users, then the only way to do that is with Facebook. Thus, his monopoly in one area (social media) is being used to help him out in another area (advertising). That didn't
Zuckerberg was very frank (Score:5, Insightful)
But, but, just as we were rifling through their pockets Google stole the gold watch, Amazon took the gold chain and the blings, Apple stole the diamond rings, and we who just got a few nickels and dimes. It aint fair ..."
It's actually kind of mind blowing (Score:3)
that Zuckerberg's benchmark for advertising insignificance is 10% of the entire online advertising market.
Crimeney! (Score:2)
Does anyone have an actual argument founded in legal code from a relevant example? I get you feel some things should be wrong, but that is not how legal code actual works.
I suppose this is why the crazies are burning everything down.
Why is it Zuckerbergs fault... (Score:1)
Typical weasel move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, do you have any more bait questions you want to ask or are we done here?
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of racist police and there won't need to be violent protests. No need to protest = systemic racism has been eliminated in law enforcement.
Now, do you have any more bait questions you want to ask or are we done here?
I think I agree with you, but that has got to be the most irrational answer I've seen on here in a while (ignoring ACs).
Re: (Score:2)
Non-white people in this country (among others) have been putting up with systemic racism for hundreds of years.
Now they've had quite enough so we've got protests.
Ignoring for the moment that there are some violent assholes who are using protests as an excuse to be violent assholes, and also ignoring for the moment that there is some False Flag bullshit going on, non-protestors making violence to discredit the protests in gene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems important to me to have a way of measuring whether or not the goal has been reached.
Is it important to know that before taking action? If your boat is sinking, is it important that you can measure how dry it is before you start bailing water?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally aware of that. But you were asked how we'll know when there are no more racist police. It's a good question.
I agree with everything you just said, but I'm also not sure that there will ever be a way to ensure that racism doesn't fester underneath whatever actions we take to try to get rid of it. I don't think that the tactics being used by BLM (and/or antifa) are very effective, nor do I think they are doing much other than to divide our nation even more.
The wrong type of law enforcement reform w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gandhi and MLK were famously successful because they wer
Re: (Score:2)
Gandhi and MLK were famously successful because they were non-violent. If violence was used against them, they remained steadfast.
And people learned that lesson very well. Especially those in power. They know that peaceful protest works, so they make sure protests always end in violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Four wrongs don't make a right (Score:2)
Let's pretend four murders were put to trial. Murderer #4 goes to the stand, and asks the court why he's being tried for murder, because he's only killed one person, while the other three each killed two. Does that mean murder #4 is innocent? Of course not.
Re: Four wrongs don't make a right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What a great ad for not spending money on Facebook (Score:1)
"The most popular messaging service in the U.S. is iMessage. The fastest growing app is TikTok. The most popular app for video is YouTube. The fastest growing ads platform is Amazon. The largest ads platform is Google."
Why would companies spend $$$ on Facebook then?
Blame the users (Score:3, Interesting)
People choose to use facebook because it provides a service people want. You can't blame facebook that people want to swim in poop. Nobody is forced to use facebook for anything.
a well rehearsed script (Score:2)
Doesn't "fastest growing" just mean "smallest"? (Score:2)
Adding a 2nd customer is then only 100% growth.
It continues downhill from there.
10c in the dollar (Score:2)
Wasted money
His defence is (Score:2)
Everyone else is doing it!
Do I get that right?
What IS it? Have ALL the C level execs in the country become three year olds?
Re: (Score:2)
Have ALL the C level execs in the country become three year olds?
When has it ever been otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, You may actually be right.
However, there WAS a time the business owners sometimes did things that made them look pretty grown up.
Henry J Kaiser wanted his workers to be healthy and able bodied to be able to work for him... So he made a health care plan for them.
Yeah, he had his own motives, but it WAS the right thing to do.
Today, it's been corrupted into just another insurance company, but it called Kaiser Permanente.
On the other hand, there was Henry Ford, the pseudo nazi.
Go figure
Waiting for the Zuck for run for POTUS (Score:2)
But FB/Instagram is the LARGEST. (Score:2)
With nearly 3.23 users.
Twitter's nearly 1/10th their size and ranks #12 (and Twitter needs to be dragged in front of Congress to answer too).
Where is Satya Nadella (Score:1)
Almost 10% has got to be a lot though, right? (Score:2)
Talk about a broad brush.... (Score:2)
Zuck is trying to claim the 'market' FB doesn't have a monopoly in is ALL ADVERTISING. FB might make money with advertising but it is not an advertising company. TV and newpapers make money through advertising as well but nothing in TV impacts whether or not a paper has a monopoly or anti-trust concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
We barely own 10% of every advertising dollar spent by anyone on any platform ever!!! That is way less than I consider satisfactory and you are calling us a monopoly just because we function as a gatekeeper with a direct jack to the eyeballs of virtually every man, woman, and child in the US and most of the world? PREPOSTEROUS!!!
If you think that's off-script, you're a moron. (Score:1)
I hope this backfires... (Score:2)