Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

Post by sonnyblarney » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #80

sonnyblarney wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clever when you consider most people aren't supportive of it. There's definitely a classist kind of fury right now, aimed a little bit at 'big corps' and 'the rich' - but I seriously doubt it extends to such moves. Most people that use Facebook probably like it, pretty much, and don't suffer any visible consequences of their ostensible loss of privacy. Similar for Google. I think a smarter approach would be…

I can assure you that there are many working class people who have a problem with Facebook. In fact, every time I see a discussion on Facebook and privacy in non-techie FB communities, it's surprising how negative people feel, and how many say that they would stop using it altogether, if they didn't have some connections there they cared about. It's basically lock-in via social graph, and don't think people are stupi…

Post by chillacy » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #44

justboxing wrote: post #19

Serious question(s), not trolling. Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company? How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing? Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of…

Well, the Warren Campaign was playing them, and they fell right into it. Because, by taking down her ads, they supported her point that they have too much power to control debate. That is, that they've become a monopoly. So they either need to be very careful not to abuse their monopoly, or be highly regulated, or be broken up. Edit: Stole from ktjfi. [and spelling]

Post by evolvedcleaning » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 2:24 AM UTC

potatofarmer45 wrote: post #87

This is smart politics. Rather than simply telling people FB is a monopoly, she runs a limited experiment that had it been left alone, would have limited effect since the budget was so small ($100). Now this puts FB in a bind. If they really are a middleman for content, then these ads don't violate any laws and shouldn't be blocked. However, FB as a company with a product should block it just like coffee shop wouldn'…

Post by chillacy » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #53

tracer4201 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s their monopoly on? Serious question. Too many people like using fb so we break them up? lolwut. Is fb actively stifling competition? Is there a market failure?

> What’s their monopoly on? Serious question. Too many people like using fb so we break them up? lolwut. Yes, basically. Or at least, they have a partial monopoly on social media. > Is fb actively stifling competition? They've been buying competitors. That's classic monopolistic behavior to stifle competition. > Is there a market failure? Pretty damn close. Even Google couldn't moose its way in.

Post by nopriorarrests » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #86

dymk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees. They all hook into the same ad backend anyways.

> Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. > They all hook into the same ad backend anyways Hence the call to break them up.