At Trial, Instagram Co-founder Says Zuckerberg Withheld Resources Over 'Threat' Fears (nytimes.com) 20
An anonymous reader shares a report: Kevin Systrom, the co-founder of Instagram, testified on Tuesday in a landmark federal antitrust trial that he left Meta in 2018 because his company was denied resources. The government has argued that Meta purchased Instagram in 2012 as part of a "buy-or-bury strategy" to illegally cement its social media monopoly by killing off its rivals. Last week, current and former Meta executives testified that the social media giant, formerly known as Facebook, used its deep pockets to invest in Instagram after its purchase.
In testimony at the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, Mr. Systrom painted a different picture, saying he left Meta because Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, wasn't investing enough. At that time, Instagram had grown to 1 billion users, about 40 percent of Facebook's size, yet the photo-sharing app had only 1,000 employees compared to 35,000 employees at Facebook, he said. "We were by far the fastest growing team. We produced the most revenue and relative to what we should have been at the time, I felt like we should have been much larger," said Mr. Systrom, who is expected to testify for six hours.
Mr. Systrom said he found the decisions baffling. When asked by an F.T.C. lawyer why Mr. Zuckerberg might have decided to give Instagram fewer resources, Mr. Systrom said it was a consistent pattern during his tenure at Meta. "Mark was not investing in Instagram because he believed we were a threat to their growth," he said, referring to Mr. Zuckerberg's prioritization of Facebook.
In testimony at the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, Mr. Systrom painted a different picture, saying he left Meta because Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, wasn't investing enough. At that time, Instagram had grown to 1 billion users, about 40 percent of Facebook's size, yet the photo-sharing app had only 1,000 employees compared to 35,000 employees at Facebook, he said. "We were by far the fastest growing team. We produced the most revenue and relative to what we should have been at the time, I felt like we should have been much larger," said Mr. Systrom, who is expected to testify for six hours.
Mr. Systrom said he found the decisions baffling. When asked by an F.T.C. lawyer why Mr. Zuckerberg might have decided to give Instagram fewer resources, Mr. Systrom said it was a consistent pattern during his tenure at Meta. "Mark was not investing in Instagram because he believed we were a threat to their growth," he said, referring to Mr. Zuckerberg's prioritization of Facebook.
Well I'm just shocked (Score:2)
This is my shocked face : /
Re: (Score:2)
Hold up a sec (Score:2)
So the complaint is that a massive company buys a smaller company and then proceeds to manage it poorly?
This must be a first. That never happens.
Re:Hold up a sec [for solutions?] (Score:3)
Mod parent funny, but I think there is a deeper problem in the anti-freedom pro-greedom economic system that supports and even encourages any mergers that reduce competition. Slightly unusual in that this was a preemptive strike whereas the majority of anti-competitive mergers are in fire sales to obtain the loser's customer base.
I still think there is a solution through pro-freedom anti-monopoly tax policy. Basic idea would be a progressive tax on profits linked to dominance of any niche. Current version w
Re: (Score:2)
Usually they don't buy it specifically to manage it poorly. Shitty management was a strategy for them, and that's the complaint.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It's social media. Anyone can roll their own at this point. Even Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is, It's not actually his company. The company is publicly traded he loses that authority and all those rights because it's now a public company and at that point the expectation is that the company will work for the public interest. In return for having a public stock price, you sign legally obligating contracts, and give that up.
Re: (Score:1)
A public company means your shares are available to purchase, via a stock exchange, by the general public instead of accredited investors. The company's obligation is to the shareholders. It's not there to serve the public any more than a private company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? This is a company choosing not to prioritize a section of itself. How is that the same as putting chalk in milk? You shouldn't be allowed to force a company to be in a particular business.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
"buy-or-bury strategy" (Score:2)