91–100 of 236 posts
Here is an interview with Philippon that has some of the main points: https://promarket.org/2019/12/09/the-lack-of-competition-has...
If the mandate is to do what is best for customers, then the best solution I can think of is to let FB function as one entity but toughen the norms on data collection. The other thing is Facebook should not inhibit any other social network trying to grow using FB's graph. A good example is how Instagram grew with the import of Twitter social graph, and when it came to Facebook, it grew further because it could import the connections that Facebook already had access to. In the name of privacy, it is a good idea to block that, but that essentially inhibits any other social network growing and becoming big. If such an export is available and allowed (while satisfying the privacy concerns), this could enable competition in the social space. As a gatekeeper, Facebook has every intention not to allow any usage to the graph.
The idea about breaking up of social networks would not do any good. You would eventually have to solve multiple problems (and again and again) as the broken up entities either die or become dominant in a big enough niche. Even if you break up Instagram or Whatsapp from Facebook, they are still monopolies in their domains. Insta might not be able to survive since they used the Facebook's ad delivery intelligence, while Whatsapp would be a dominant monopoly in messaging nonetheless.
This is a landmark case if brought on, but needs to be dealt very smartly, if they want to actually solve problems and set the right precedents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos) The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. > I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre…
> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems. > I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all…
That isn't how monopolies work - while some people can individually make huge sacrificies and not use any Facebook product, in reality that isn't practical and few people will because they are a monopoly.
This isn't like buying a car where there are multiple providers who all use the same roads and petrol. Or the mobile phone system, where there are standards (GSM) and regulations so you have a choice of physical and virtual networks.
In my mind, breaking up Facebook would be a massively pro-market (increase choice and competition) and massively pro-capitalist (increase investment of capital, profit and innovation) move.
I haven't used Facebook since 2010 and I have never used Instagram.
If someone in my social network wants to send me some information they have my number and they can txt me. If someone wants to send me a picture they can do the same.
I don't use Facebook because ultimately for me it is completely redundant.
To call Facebook a monopoly is an analogy at best. You are not going to solve these problems through analogy though, these are uniquely new problems.
This is why I think anti-trust laws should be a lot more pro-active and all dominant players should be denied mergers about X amount (where X would be an optimal sum of money like say $1 billion or $100 million company value).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how having national backed social media platforms to the likes china does is a better alternative for end users compared to facebook. If you are a proponent for open speech this will accomplish the opposite since it simplifies state issued censorship. I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't b…
It's a trade off. Do you want to risk being censored by your own country or risk being censored by San Francisco?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to check, between Facebook and WeChat, which company engages more in predatory, racist and violent practices and is complicit in unthinkable brutality and violations of human rights?
is it a competition? Because nobody is winning. Nobody in the world says, oh please Americans come to fuck us because at least you use lubricant.
I think the very unhealthy dominance of Facebook will only start to properly recede when countries outside the USA start to block its use. This is a highly predatory company that takes away sovereignty in each nation's cyberspace and it really only makes sense for foreign countries to block it and either let their own national corporate replacements emerge (as China has done) or foster the use of open social networks…
Small countries can ban facebook from doing certain things. Ultimately, some sovereignty exists even in global commerce. If New Zealand made (eg) political advertising, targeted advertising, or such ilegal, Facebook would stop doing it in New Zealand. That is treating the symptom, but it is not totally ineffective. Treating the problem is dealing with the monopoly. The current state of antitrust laws, norms and regul…
A bigger problem is FB owns much better products like WhatsApp - it is easy to quit FB than WhatsApp in my opinion