Facebook Can’t Be Fixed, It Needs to Be Broken Up
111–114 of 114 posts
Re: Facebook Can’t Be Fixed, It Needs to Be Broken Up
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they're "too big to fail"? If you break of the platforms into smaller separate companies, why would that cede leadership to Chinese companies?
Using the legislative branch to break apart a competitive business into smaller disconnected pieces isn't a failure from internal crisis / overleverage. > why would that cede leadership to Chinese companies? It cedes leadership because the Chinese companies, modeled after the un-splintered US platforms, have more resources, capability to undertake coordinated action, and can take advantage of greater network effects.
The Chinese platforms could be banned from the US for a whole host of reasons. China does the same to US platforms and they're unlikely to reverse course on that any time soon.
Re: Facebook Can’t Be Fixed, It Needs to Be Broken Up
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
There would be consequences, but I doubt they would be that major. Facebook hasn't really contributed anything of value, other than a platform for people to get tracked mercilessly. FB's business model is based on advertising, and advertising is poison to the mind. But I do think the best solution is very strict privacy regulation, similar to GDPR. The so-called free market has failed to manifest a good solution to p…
I think the modern society has forgotten how it is to not have facebook so if that would be forcefully taken away at this point, there would be a lot of angry people not knowing what to do any more.
They'll adapt. Facebook isn't even the trendy social network anymore.
It's not like Facebook really does much that's innovative for users anymore. Their only real innovation was to couple a real-names policy along with social exclusivity, but the value to users of that was lost long ago during their race to 2 billion users.
Re: Facebook Can’t Be Fixed, It Needs to Be Broken Up
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the legislative branch to break apart a competitive business into smaller disconnected pieces isn't a failure from internal crisis / overleverage. > why would that cede leadership to Chinese companies? It cedes leadership because the Chinese companies, modeled after the un-splintered US platforms, have more resources, capability to undertake coordinated action, and can take advantage of greater network effects.
> It cedes leadership because the Chinese companies, modeled after the un-splintered US platforms, have more resources, capability to undertake coordinated action, and can take advantage of greater network effects. The Chinese platforms could be banned from the US for a whole host of reasons. China does the same to US platforms and they're unlikely to reverse course on that any time soon.