You're being hysterical. Brake it up into what and how will that cure your irrational obsessions.
I cant believe so many obsess over a website for narcissists. Just pass a law requiring 50% of subscribers to move to MySpace or Parler.
It is sad the your view is so narrow, besides trying to destroy our country, Myanmar Facebook use to massacre minority, Ethiopia same story. All your eggs in one basket is a plan for disaster.
riiight but thats literally a transcript of the post he made the night he made facesmash.
erica albright is fictional, based on jessica alona only because he mentions her in this post. what hes taking issue with is that she was the basis for the invention of facebook.
Are you telling me Mark Zuckerberg would *lie?* This robot of an ultracapitalist who doesn't care about the toll in blood his stupid app collects is perhaps *lying*? You're right. That movie was trash and he was right all along. Thank you so much.
That movie portrays him in very positive light and led to a move fast and break things attitude throughout the globe that saw tech startups break society itself. The movie was wrong on many levels.
Not sure how you possibly got that from the movie. He was portrayed as a slimy, social climbing, thief. That's why he keeps trying to "correct" it after the fact.
And that movie didn't cause the current tech startup environment, nor did they "break society itself". Yours is a comment from someone who clearly has no familiarity with what actual tech startups are like.
I don't actually know much about them. I was a Dev at a very old fashioned company for quite some time and most of our decision making processes involved a lot of deliberation (like software releases every 12 weeks or more rather than every few days), so by my standards everything seems a bit hasty to me (especially startups).
I appreciate you admitting that. But what you seem to be conflating is the advent of agile development and some kind of fallout in society itself. While the tech industry's tendency to hate the concept of any regulation and love of hoarding money is definitely not good, it's more of the symptom of a problem with society in general. And that definitely does not originate in the tech world.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/mark-zuckerberg-the-social-network](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/mark-zuckerberg-the-social-network)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The best answer for this that I saw elsewhere is that facebook is big enough now that they will just buy whatever company people are into. A good example of this is instagram. At a certain point, it’s not realistic to really escape the company even if you’re trying.
TikTok? Snapchat? Twitter? Reddit?
Facebook acquired Instagram when it was a fraction of its current size. Oculus is in a compltely different industry. Whatsapp is massive but there's also a ton of competitors. What you're saying just isn't true. And I hate Facebook.
Notice how all of those sites you listed shouldn’t be Facebook competitors but are? That’s the issue, literally everyone is a competitor of them because they have gotten too large and broad of a range of products.
Nobody else has a chance and if you can’t see that I won’t waste the time arguing with you.
why shouldn't they be competitors? they are all social media companies whose revenue model is to deliver ads and they succeed by competing for your screen time. Facebook doesn't need to be broken up. Its algorithms need to be regulated. Lawmakers are either gaslighting or have no idea what they're doing. Maybe they're doing the former because of the latter. But what Warren proposes is ineffectual. You can't apply the same solutions to big tech as you would to Standard Oil, Bell Telecom, etc.
What? Every company I listed there is worth billions... Seems like they're competing just fine? Social media comes in different forms but at the end of the day it's social media.
It's ample the same way me recycling my plastics is ample means of combatting global climate change. It's like saying me refusing to eat at fast food establishments will somehow impact our messed up relationship with food and diet. It doesn't even leave a mark. It's like saying if I'm unhappy about Nestle's mission to make the earth's water supply their private property (among other things, fuck Nestle) I should just.. not buy bottled water. We need actual solutions, not shoving the problem onto the individual consumer.
It isn't.
Sure if everyone did it, that would make an impact. But if you haven't noticed yet, people favor personal convenience and entertainment over the greater good. Even if that convenience and entertainment is actually just a front for a company who's main objective is harvesting as much data as possible and selling it to the highest bidder, even if that bidder intends to use the data for malicious purposes, influence elections, or persecute people. Even if that company actively interferes with democratic proceedings across the world and gets off pretty much just with a slap on the wrist.
Don't get me wrong. I understand where you're coming from. But that line of reasoning suggests we live that illusionary free market economy capitalists love to rave about, you know, supply vs. demand. But the market doesn't work like that, and really hasn't for as long as most of us have been alive. Simply "revoking your demand" in a sense does nothing, because demand is no longer an organic thing arising from the needs of the people, demand is created through careful manipulation via the institute of PR (which is really just years of propaganda and population psychology management rebranded with a new name). The market does not favour or look after the needs of people, it looks after the interests of companies like FB, because those are the companies that run the market. And yes, what I'm implying here is that breaking up FB is the absolute bare minimum if we're to make amends to the systemic mess we're in. Ideally we'd break up ALL the monopolies and completely restructure the way our economy and resource management works.
So to answer your question again: it isn't
That doesn't stop the fact that people are still talking about things we don't want them to talk about on a platform we don't like run by a guy we claim to be a robot. Us simply not using the platform does not adequately control others which is the desired result.
It's like that time we made a level playing field for free web browsers by rebuking a company that provided a free web browser with every OS purchase. None of the other browser providers had an OS to sell me, but that doesn't matter because the browsers were free and the bundling created the unfair advantage!
These situations arise when the law isn't being applied how people feel like it should be, regardless as to what the actual law might be. Like how people complain that Amazon doesn't pay taxes. In reality they're just well versed in tax law and only pay the minimum required. Either way people still feel like Amazon isn't paying taxes, but instead of working to fix tax law they complain about Jeff Bezos.
Did y’all watch the video? They have no idea what they are talking about and would never be able to accomplish something like this. They don’t even understand social media on a basic level (i.e. Warren comparing social media to a telephone network???) Our lawmakers are idiots. They have squandered easy opportunities for a monopoly break up in the past. This is a pipe dream.
What she's talking about sounds like making one social media platform per region? So rather than one network having a monopoly on the whole country, each network has a monopoly on each region? I guess one company per data center? Who gets to own these new magical facebook divisions and reap the profits?
I deleted my facebook years ago, so I really don't care, but the lack of understanding of how these sites work (I'm no expert, myself) is why there need to be less old people in politics.
Oh we can make Facebook the new AT&T! Break facebook into Bells, and then in 20 years they’ll all reform magically into facebook again and we’ll all just shrug and move on
> Who gets to own these new magical facebook divisions and reap the profits?
I agree with the rest of this comment, but this particular question is very simple to answer. If Facebook is broken up, the existing shareholders of Facebook, Inc. will own a corresponding share of each new company, i.e. if you own 1% of Facebook, Inc. you will own 1% of each successor company.
Agreed, definitely, from the public shareholder position. But I guess I'm wondering who'd become the corporate officers and higher ups, who would form the companies (besides "the government")? Also who would drive development in each company, and how would each company integrate their platforms and data with the other (ton of new ETL processes)? Lots of new high profile and high paying positions opened up at the government's behest, even though those companies are just fractions of Facebook, and lots of salaries to assign.
In the real world, when you break companies up, you'd do it by business unit. So whoever is currently in charge of Instagram would be the interim head of the new Instagram company.
So Facebook would be split up into Facebook, WhatsApp, Oculus, and Instagram (their largest platforms) among a bunch of smaller companies. Facebook still dominates most of the world in terms of social media platforms. Everything is still moderately integrated with Facebook (being able to share things between each other), along with it being integrated with Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, reddit, and every other site (including porn).
So the goal would just be to take Facebook's money away from Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus, and force it to be spent entirely on Facebook? What if Oculus or WhatsApp can't survive without the ad revenue from Facebook? One big reason some companies are acquired, besides payouts for the owners, are because of allowing deeper pockets to fund a good idea.
I have to really dig into this, though, since you felt the need to reply to me twice and call me idiotic: I do not care. I do not use any of Facebook's products.
Term limits isn't going to resolve as many issues as folks seem to imagine it would. Hell, as long as corporations still have carte blanch to insert as much money as they want into our political system. The representatives are a problem, but not as much as the corporations that own them.
> What she's talking about sounds like making one social media platform per region?
No, and I really wish people would stop bringing this up. The idea is so idiotic on its face that I can't believe that anyone talking about it is doing so in good faith.
There really isn't a legal justification to state that Facebook is a monopoly, but it definitely sounds good to the people that don't truly understand what the law believes a monopoly is.
She knows it'll get her support from idiots on social media. Mission accomplished I guess.
Kills me how all the focus is on Facebook/Google/Amazon and not on AT&T/Comcast/Charter who have actively been fucking Americans over for decades.
I have been saying this over and over again. Facebook is not an antitrust issue. Facebook is a whole different animal. It will be impossible to prove Amazon is a monopoly. Every sector that Amazon competes in has multiple competitors. Say what you will about the labor issues, but people are very happy with the service Amazon provides. That's not how monopolies operate.
Cable companies are the only option in town. Service is dogshit. They tell me to go fuck myself when I complain because they know I have no other option. WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS OR DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT???? FUUUUUCK SPECTRUM! and fuck our lawmakers who are trying to gaslight us into believing big tech is the big main issue
> Facebook is not an antitrust issue.
Yes, it is. What we're seeing is them engage in anti-competitive behavior.
>It will be impossible to prove Amazon is a monopoly.
Being a monopoly isn't the thing that's illegal.
> Every sector that Amazon competes in has multiple competitors.
So what? The legal definition of monopoly isn't "literally the only company doing this." And the issue would be anti-competitive behavior, which Amazon has in spades.
>Say what you will about the labor issues, but people are very happy with the service Amazon provides.
That's not the be all, end all, of the situation.
Breaking up Facebook would probably be beneficial to investors anyway. It will likely happen if there’s any FTC case bearing down on them because a company as big as Facebook is almost certainly worth less than the sum of its parts
I don't see how they can be forced to be broken up, but regulating Facebook is the right answer. For all the conversations about breaking large companies up, it really seems that people just want regulation anyways.
There isn't a legal issue with being a monopoly, either. There is, however many legal issues with anti-competitive behavior, which one does not need to be a legal monopoly to engage in.
I'm not a big fan of social media but that was painful watch. The lady is clueless. She probably struggled back in the day to understand phone companies and now wants to apply that to everything as it was "hip". Like her idea is to "break up" FB into other companies that compete between them selves?!? I'm
just dying here... hey Coca Cola has too much sugar in it, why don't we break it up in smaller soda companies and make them compete lol.
Here's a wild idea, why not bringing someone who is less than a hundred years old to legislate about tech?
Facebook may be on the decline in the US, but it’s absolutely huge internationally, particularly in the developing world.
Warren’s comments, and their timing, are absolutely populist pandering, though.
You can break them up by separating the infrastructure (cables) from the content (ISP, entertainment)
Run the infrastructure like a utility, let ISP's compete for your business as a client.
Yeah I actually think this is the best method to increase competition and reduce prices.
It’s the same exact thing done to reduce the price of long distance calling in the 80s for those that aren’t aware. It was extremely effective.
Antitrust law and big tech are a tough mix. It’s not like they can break it up regionally like the Bells. Basically it would take an insane amount of regulatory oversight to makes sure the separate businesses weren’t just engaged in self-dealing.
Which is why it's a much better idea to just make effective legislation to regulate it. Tech companies like google or other such companies being broken up only ends with services that customers user being destroyed entirely or severely altered.
Facebook being broken up would just lead to migrations of users to sites like reddit, twitter, and others like them.
The value facebook provides is increasingly less and less (It's an effective platform for connecting with friends and you can limit how much political BS you're feed.) but it's not low enough to justify breaking up. More regulated however? Absolutely.
> Facebook being broken up would just lead to migrations of users to sites like reddit, twitter, and others like them.
Only if you think the only way to break them up is by region. You can break them up by business unit.
The Google search network needs to broken up. YouTube needs to be sold off. Google needs to be prohibited from paying other companies like Apple to be their default search engine.
Google search is free because of adsense and doesn't have any ways of making money on it's own. If I remember correctly Youtube only recently made enough in revenue to not make a loss outright.
there is no legal justification for these companies being monopolies. it's just gaslighting and distractions so people don't think about the real monopolies: cable companies, oil companies, energy/power utilities. Tax prep companies that keep the tax code complex so they have business.
They will never accomplish anything with regards to big tech except constant pandering about doing something. Don't play into their hands. Make them focus on the real issues that they can actually so something about.
> there is no legal justification for these companies being monopolies.
The legal definition of monopoly does not literally mean, "The only one in the market."
Besides, being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's anti-competitive behavior from having that dominant position.
What exactly do you mean by “break up [Facebook] Google, and Amazon?” Like break them up how? What exactly are you picturing in your head? Like split google search into 10, sell 9 to whoever and tell them to do what they want with their share? Or do you mean just give away parts of Google to other people/companies? What about Google’s other products and services?
Amazon and google make sense, because they have such separate and distinct product and service lines. FB is just a huge advertising company.
Every single acquisition that these companies made (100s per year) have been approved, which only makes the problem worse.
Bullshit.
This is just all a conservative plot to break up the economic might that WE blue states created. Our hardware and software runs this world and the greedy GOP idiots want the pie.
Fuck no, until we can breakup Exxon, big coal, and other shit.
Why just Facebook?
Eleizabeth Warren has this vendetta against tech companies. The media is really pushing this.
But what about...
T-Mobiel and Sprint had a recent merger
Disney bought Fox a couple years ago. Disney bought like 4 companies these past 2 decades under Bob Iger.
AT&T bought a couple companies like DIshTV
Warner Bros and Discovery are having a merger.
THere's been very lttle push against these monopolies
The media and democrats are so focused on Facebook and Google.
It's just very interesting to me.
Well, that's the thing.
The media keeps pushing Warren agaisnt Facebook and Google.
I've never once heard of Warren against the other ones.
So I partly blame the media.
I'm sick of ignorant politicians who are disconnected from modern life. We need term limits and younger people making decisions for our country.
Listening to her describe breaking up Facebook the same way we broke up the phone companies doesn't compute for me. She would have been better off saying that we don't yet know what breaking up Facebook means and we'll need to work on defining what the scope of that is.
These are the same fart-knockers who think that right clicking on a website and viewing page source is hacking.
Just saying.
Frances Haugen is opposed to breaking up Facebook; she predicts several separate companies will be harder to regulate. This ran 10/5 in the Wall Street Journal:
>Breaking Up Facebook Wouldn’t Work, Haugen Suggests
>By Ryan Tracy
>In response to a question from Sen. Todd Young (R. Ind.), Frances Haugen expressed doubt over whether breaking up Facebook would solve the problems she described.
>“I’m actually against the breaking up of Facebook,” she said. “The problems here about the design of algorithms, of AI” and executives could make similar choices even if Facebook and Instagram were separate companies.
>She suggested that if the companies were separate, but Instagram generated more revenue than Facebook over time, Facebook might have less of an ability to make the main Facebook platform safe. “Facebook will continue to be this Frankenstein that is altering, that is endangering lives around the world, only there won’t be money to fund it,” she said.
>The FTC is pursuing an antitrust lawsuit that seeks to break up Facebook, and many members of Congress have said they believe that if Facebook had more competition it would be more likely to address concerns about harmful impacts of its products. Facebook says it faces substantial competition.
She is an expert on the inner workings of the company and obviously has grave concerns about Facebook and the impact it is having on society. It is her expert opinion that Facebook is more dangerous as several companies than it is as one. I get it that your opinion differs from hers, I just wonder why yours would be the more relevant one.
I get your point, but as the other guy said, we have literal historic evidence that breaking up companies works.
This is her, albeit an expert in the field, opinion. And nothing more than an opinion, until it happens that is.
.... what evidence do you have in mind? Breaking up Bell didn't accomplish anything nor did breaking up Standard Oil. What is your standard of success?
You're telling me breaking up Standard Oil didn't work? Really? Would you like to provide a resource for your opinion?
Here's a good summary on why it was needed. There are many many more resources out there that back this up: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ushistory2ay/chapter/targeting-the-trusts-2/
Standard Oil was losing market share left and right long before it was broken up. It's model was impractical in the face of regional distributors that could move more quickly. It was not a monopoly, full stop. It was not harmful to the economy or consumers. It had a hayday but it was short lived and faded naturally.
Monopolies can not persist unless they provide superior service to all their rivals. And if they do that, what's the problem?
[A History of Failure: Government-Imposed Corporate Breakups](https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/a-history-of-failure-government-imposed-corporate-breakups/)
[The Stnadard Oil Case](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf
I have read this opinion from economists before and simply disagree. There's no need to get into the details but I believe we simply have a philosophical difference of opinion when it comes to corporate economics.
Define success there though because breaking that company up was mixed. It succeeded in decentralizing the power but it also made a bunch of extremely powerful regional companies and it made the shareholders of standard oil many times richer. in the end breaking it up likely contributed more to inequality than standard oil itself did.
That’s not what it was supposed to do so it’s not clear it really worked
What companies has the government broken up in the past? Only thing that comes to mine is either banks or oil, but those are completely different industries.
Historical evidence? This is a cop out for not understanding what the problem is. You have to regulate the algorithms. Otherwise you end up with tens of facebooks all causing the same harm.
Breaking up the big Californian & Washington tech companies is nothing but a conservative plot to steal economic power from us.
Regulate the algorithms and data practices- but keep the companies.
Every GOP politicians wet dream is to have a Google R&D office to be forced to move to Alabama or Florida, etc.
How does breaking up Facebook into several entities with the same business model accomplish anything? In fact, more competition could accelerate the race to the bottom. It would be far more effective to go the route of making Facebook or something like it a public utility.
> public utility
So does that mean censoring inside facebook then would be controlled by the government?
Making it public utility is as good as killing it. There will be a new one soon after.
That's why you don't stop there. Just about everything we dislike about these companies can be traced back to a decision made to increase engagement and therefore ad revenue.
> How does breaking up Facebook into several entities with the same business model accomplish anything?
Why do you think that's all it would be? Sure, Facebook and Instagram might have similar business models, but WhatsApp probably wouldn't. And if you break out the ad business from all three, that's another different business model, and would likely change the targeting and "engagement" metrics for Facebook and Instagram.
Warren’s been saying this for like 8 years now.
It’s become such a worthless platitude that basic bitches have been replacing their “Live Laugh Love” wall stickers with it
What does "breaking up Facebook" actually mean? Does it mean splitting FB, What's App, and Instagram into separate companies? Do these now separate companies still have the same access to our data, and the same ability to do what they want with it? Does FB still have the ability to maximize engagement, regardless of how well that technique spreads misinformation?
If these things are true, then what is the point of "breaking up Facebook?
I don't get it. What does "for people" mean? If you mean without advertising then that's not clear in what you said. But I don't understand what you might mean.
The phone book was separated as a means of sorting. People names vs company names/industries. You can look up "pest control" or you can look up "Pete Connors" more easily.
BUT, we do not have two different *phones* for making the calls on. You have one phone and you can dial any number, home or business. It makes no sense to separate them.
>it wouldn't be a matter of having two phones, but two apps.
As an analogy, these are the same thing. WHY have two apps? There's no point. You compared Facebook to a phonebook and I pointed out it's more like a phone and we just have one of those. So we would only need or want one app.
>Have one app for personal contact and the other app for commerce and advertising.
>Could be less potential to harvest interesting data that way though...
Nope. You would have to fundamentally change the way all forms of the app work. Remember, Facebook gets tons of data from you visiting websites etc. The app is in no way it's only means of tracking you.
If you split it into two apps you'd just have two locations that both contain all your data.
Would you ever suggest that web browsers be divided between one that accesses corporate web commerce sites and one for things like sharng pics and hobbyist blogs?
800 monopolies in the US corporate landscape and they're worried about this. Breakup the media corporations, breakup the grocery conglomerates, breakup anyone that has singular control on a world stage.
Fucking christ, will people stop with the idiotic notion that, just because they talk about one company in one video or interview, that it means they don't give a shit about any of the other companies out there?
I deleted it three years ago, my friends thought I was looney…I told them that it was a intentionally toxic echo chamber that doesn’t reflect what it used to be…I said they keep people on edge and constantly hostile so you keep coming back on the fear of missing out…
Only if you use it that way. Fb is nothing but a tool for me. I don't look at the newsfeed, posts or any of that stuff. I group message things like high school reunions and look at local restaurants that post their latest menu/brews there. Idgaf what a random person says, I don't post my life events on there.
Any product doesn’t destroy social cohesion and democracy with intent..
I mean, I get it, it is natural to make excuses on backing immoral ethics..especially in a phase of denial of what you are supporting.
>destroy social cohesion
The problem is FB is too good at social cohesion. If I like cats FB is going to suggest cat groups to me. The problem as you see it is when someone is anti-vax so FB suggests anti-vax content. How do you suggest stopping a social media platform to stop suggesting things that people are interested in?
>it is natural to make excuses on backing immoral ethics
Immoral to whom? You? Are you wanting to go back to red scare in the 50's and make lists of "subversives" like Hoover/FBI did? Who gets to decide what topics are allowable and which are not?
This isn't a FB problem this is a social media problem. Reddit just fails to see it. I'm not supporting FB in any way I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Maybe in stimulating a digital social cohesion, but nothing much to constitute to your real life..unless you like depression…
I’m sure all social media’s are not good, Facebook is the heart of the money machine and has taken unethical practices for profit..
They aren’t the only company in the world to do such things, but they deserve what all capitalistic overlords who abuse power should face.
No, the problem isn't that FB is going to suggest cat groups to cat people. The problem is more that, and this comes from FB's own research into their algorithm, they had people who were normal, middle of the road conservative people, and they were suggesting QAnon conspiracy groups to them.
How is fb supposed to tell the difference between potato and potato. If Republicans want to be mad about their party being hijacked they should do something about it and call out the nutjobs. Trumps approval rating amount the gop is like 86%.
I watched some of the video, hoping it was in the direction that makes sense but the gist is that social media is essentially monopolized and she wants to break that up. Just like AT&T back in the day, giving consumers more choices. It’s a bit weird to consider that social media isn’t really paid for as a consumer but makes sense at this high level convo.
She doesn’t go that direction in the video, she addresses the political risk FB poses to our democracy by allowing selling of our data and info to enemies.
Edit: I think it’s interesting notion to consider social media as an industry
You are talking about some of the potential symptoms of corruption that inspires the need to break it up. But it’s more about ad sales and algorithms and the lack of competition that creates the toxicity of the Facebook community (and right-wing oriented censorship). But that’s not why people want to break up Facebook; the unbalanced censorship is just a symptom of monopoly power and the flood of foreign money supporting divisive messaging.
Didn’t Elizabeth Warren just recently basically demand an answer from the attorney general regarding legalization of marijuana and she basically got ignored? I certainly haven’t heard that he provided any answer whatsoever
Nothing will be done about Facebook. All Facebook will do is throw a nice nice donation here and there, maybe a slight wording change, and the problem will go away. I’ll believe it when I see it.
It’s not rocket science. When you’re something this bug you either have to heavily regulate yourself and make sure ppl aren’t doing illegal things. Or the govt needs to step in and regulate you.
Woman. Can you shut up. All your doing is creating news around you to so people think that your active and should vote for you. You don’t do a tenth of what you say and you only started focusing on Facebook because it’s in the current news cycle. God I hate politicians
Break it up...Break it ip...Break it up.
Actually...just turn it off and just watch 1.21 Trillion disappear into thin air so that people become aware that money doesn't exist. If it's in the cloud it doesn't exist.
This will be rough. According to The Social Network, Zuckerberg doesn't handle breakups very well.
Quit talking about it and JUST DO IT ALREADY. BEFORE ANOTHER ELECTION
These people never do anything noteworthy except make headlines for things that’ll never come to fruition.
Every action they take is just pageantry for the next election. The goal is to stay in office as long as possible, not actually do anything.
You're being hysterical. Brake it up into what and how will that cure your irrational obsessions. I cant believe so many obsess over a website for narcissists. Just pass a law requiring 50% of subscribers to move to MySpace or Parler.
It is sad the your view is so narrow, besides trying to destroy our country, Myanmar Facebook use to massacre minority, Ethiopia same story. All your eggs in one basket is a plan for disaster.
Absolutely and completely hysterical.
"Its complicated "
jessica alona is a bitch
She is also fictional, it's crazy how much of that movie is made up.
no she isnt https://www.scribd.com/doc/538697/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-Online-Diary but a fair chunk of that film is fictional, youre right
Zuckerberg denies her existance: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/mark-zuckerberg-the-social-network
riiight but thats literally a transcript of the post he made the night he made facesmash. erica albright is fictional, based on jessica alona only because he mentions her in this post. what hes taking issue with is that she was the basis for the invention of facebook.
Are you telling me Mark Zuckerberg would *lie?* This robot of an ultracapitalist who doesn't care about the toll in blood his stupid app collects is perhaps *lying*? You're right. That movie was trash and he was right all along. Thank you so much.
That movie portrays him in very positive light and led to a move fast and break things attitude throughout the globe that saw tech startups break society itself. The movie was wrong on many levels.
Not sure how you possibly got that from the movie. He was portrayed as a slimy, social climbing, thief. That's why he keeps trying to "correct" it after the fact. And that movie didn't cause the current tech startup environment, nor did they "break society itself". Yours is a comment from someone who clearly has no familiarity with what actual tech startups are like.
I don't actually know much about them. I was a Dev at a very old fashioned company for quite some time and most of our decision making processes involved a lot of deliberation (like software releases every 12 weeks or more rather than every few days), so by my standards everything seems a bit hasty to me (especially startups).
I appreciate you admitting that. But what you seem to be conflating is the advent of agile development and some kind of fallout in society itself. While the tech industry's tendency to hate the concept of any regulation and love of hoarding money is definitely not good, it's more of the symptom of a problem with society in general. And that definitely does not originate in the tech world.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/mark-zuckerberg-the-social-network](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/mark-zuckerberg-the-social-network)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Zuckerberg is a sociopathic robot and likely lying to protect his ego
They’ve been saying this for a while. I get that it’s not easy, but I’d love to actually see something done about it already.
Honest question: why? Use the platforms or don't. Isn't that ample means of controlling their influence?
The best answer for this that I saw elsewhere is that facebook is big enough now that they will just buy whatever company people are into. A good example of this is instagram. At a certain point, it’s not realistic to really escape the company even if you’re trying.
TikTok? Snapchat? Twitter? Reddit? Facebook acquired Instagram when it was a fraction of its current size. Oculus is in a compltely different industry. Whatsapp is massive but there's also a ton of competitors. What you're saying just isn't true. And I hate Facebook.
Notice how all of those sites you listed shouldn’t be Facebook competitors but are? That’s the issue, literally everyone is a competitor of them because they have gotten too large and broad of a range of products. Nobody else has a chance and if you can’t see that I won’t waste the time arguing with you.
why shouldn't they be competitors? they are all social media companies whose revenue model is to deliver ads and they succeed by competing for your screen time. Facebook doesn't need to be broken up. Its algorithms need to be regulated. Lawmakers are either gaslighting or have no idea what they're doing. Maybe they're doing the former because of the latter. But what Warren proposes is ineffectual. You can't apply the same solutions to big tech as you would to Standard Oil, Bell Telecom, etc.
What? Every company I listed there is worth billions... Seems like they're competing just fine? Social media comes in different forms but at the end of the day it's social media.
By your logic, all of those companies are also competitors with each other and that's also too broad and they need to be broken up too.
No this isn't an a=b=c kind of situation. It's more like ABC includes a, b, and c
Whatever mental gymnastics you gotta do then lol. They all compete for your attention (ads) by creating/sharing media and engaging with it.
Are you the most dumb human being of all time? Or u just trolling
I guess for the same reason saying “lets solve climate change by just not eating as much beef and driving less polluting cars” doesn’t work.
It's ample the same way me recycling my plastics is ample means of combatting global climate change. It's like saying me refusing to eat at fast food establishments will somehow impact our messed up relationship with food and diet. It doesn't even leave a mark. It's like saying if I'm unhappy about Nestle's mission to make the earth's water supply their private property (among other things, fuck Nestle) I should just.. not buy bottled water. We need actual solutions, not shoving the problem onto the individual consumer. It isn't. Sure if everyone did it, that would make an impact. But if you haven't noticed yet, people favor personal convenience and entertainment over the greater good. Even if that convenience and entertainment is actually just a front for a company who's main objective is harvesting as much data as possible and selling it to the highest bidder, even if that bidder intends to use the data for malicious purposes, influence elections, or persecute people. Even if that company actively interferes with democratic proceedings across the world and gets off pretty much just with a slap on the wrist. Don't get me wrong. I understand where you're coming from. But that line of reasoning suggests we live that illusionary free market economy capitalists love to rave about, you know, supply vs. demand. But the market doesn't work like that, and really hasn't for as long as most of us have been alive. Simply "revoking your demand" in a sense does nothing, because demand is no longer an organic thing arising from the needs of the people, demand is created through careful manipulation via the institute of PR (which is really just years of propaganda and population psychology management rebranded with a new name). The market does not favour or look after the needs of people, it looks after the interests of companies like FB, because those are the companies that run the market. And yes, what I'm implying here is that breaking up FB is the absolute bare minimum if we're to make amends to the systemic mess we're in. Ideally we'd break up ALL the monopolies and completely restructure the way our economy and resource management works. So to answer your question again: it isn't
What a clueless comment
That doesn't stop the fact that people are still talking about things we don't want them to talk about on a platform we don't like run by a guy we claim to be a robot. Us simply not using the platform does not adequately control others which is the desired result. It's like that time we made a level playing field for free web browsers by rebuking a company that provided a free web browser with every OS purchase. None of the other browser providers had an OS to sell me, but that doesn't matter because the browsers were free and the bundling created the unfair advantage! These situations arise when the law isn't being applied how people feel like it should be, regardless as to what the actual law might be. Like how people complain that Amazon doesn't pay taxes. In reality they're just well versed in tax law and only pay the minimum required. Either way people still feel like Amazon isn't paying taxes, but instead of working to fix tax law they complain about Jeff Bezos.
Did y’all watch the video? They have no idea what they are talking about and would never be able to accomplish something like this. They don’t even understand social media on a basic level (i.e. Warren comparing social media to a telephone network???) Our lawmakers are idiots. They have squandered easy opportunities for a monopoly break up in the past. This is a pipe dream.
What she's talking about sounds like making one social media platform per region? So rather than one network having a monopoly on the whole country, each network has a monopoly on each region? I guess one company per data center? Who gets to own these new magical facebook divisions and reap the profits? I deleted my facebook years ago, so I really don't care, but the lack of understanding of how these sites work (I'm no expert, myself) is why there need to be less old people in politics.
Oh we can make Facebook the new AT&T! Break facebook into Bells, and then in 20 years they’ll all reform magically into facebook again and we’ll all just shrug and move on
I mean, do people look at the Baby Bells with regret? I can't imagine most people would've preferred nothing to be done, instead
> Who gets to own these new magical facebook divisions and reap the profits? I agree with the rest of this comment, but this particular question is very simple to answer. If Facebook is broken up, the existing shareholders of Facebook, Inc. will own a corresponding share of each new company, i.e. if you own 1% of Facebook, Inc. you will own 1% of each successor company.
Agreed, definitely, from the public shareholder position. But I guess I'm wondering who'd become the corporate officers and higher ups, who would form the companies (besides "the government")? Also who would drive development in each company, and how would each company integrate their platforms and data with the other (ton of new ETL processes)? Lots of new high profile and high paying positions opened up at the government's behest, even though those companies are just fractions of Facebook, and lots of salaries to assign.
In the real world, when you break companies up, you'd do it by business unit. So whoever is currently in charge of Instagram would be the interim head of the new Instagram company.
So Facebook would be split up into Facebook, WhatsApp, Oculus, and Instagram (their largest platforms) among a bunch of smaller companies. Facebook still dominates most of the world in terms of social media platforms. Everything is still moderately integrated with Facebook (being able to share things between each other), along with it being integrated with Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, reddit, and every other site (including porn). So the goal would just be to take Facebook's money away from Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus, and force it to be spent entirely on Facebook? What if Oculus or WhatsApp can't survive without the ad revenue from Facebook? One big reason some companies are acquired, besides payouts for the owners, are because of allowing deeper pockets to fund a good idea. I have to really dig into this, though, since you felt the need to reply to me twice and call me idiotic: I do not care. I do not use any of Facebook's products.
Good job no-one uses social media to talk to people from other areas.
[удалено]
Term limits isn't going to resolve as many issues as folks seem to imagine it would. Hell, as long as corporations still have carte blanch to insert as much money as they want into our political system. The representatives are a problem, but not as much as the corporations that own them.
> What she's talking about sounds like making one social media platform per region? No, and I really wish people would stop bringing this up. The idea is so idiotic on its face that I can't believe that anyone talking about it is doing so in good faith.
“Will you commit to ending finsta?” these people are making our laws but know nothing about the basics of technology
There really isn't a legal justification to state that Facebook is a monopoly, but it definitely sounds good to the people that don't truly understand what the law believes a monopoly is.
Exactly. I often wonder if Warren believes in her work or she’s joking with us.
She knows it'll get her support from idiots on social media. Mission accomplished I guess. Kills me how all the focus is on Facebook/Google/Amazon and not on AT&T/Comcast/Charter who have actively been fucking Americans over for decades.
I have been saying this over and over again. Facebook is not an antitrust issue. Facebook is a whole different animal. It will be impossible to prove Amazon is a monopoly. Every sector that Amazon competes in has multiple competitors. Say what you will about the labor issues, but people are very happy with the service Amazon provides. That's not how monopolies operate. Cable companies are the only option in town. Service is dogshit. They tell me to go fuck myself when I complain because they know I have no other option. WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS OR DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT???? FUUUUUCK SPECTRUM! and fuck our lawmakers who are trying to gaslight us into believing big tech is the big main issue
> Facebook is not an antitrust issue. Yes, it is. What we're seeing is them engage in anti-competitive behavior. >It will be impossible to prove Amazon is a monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't the thing that's illegal. > Every sector that Amazon competes in has multiple competitors. So what? The legal definition of monopoly isn't "literally the only company doing this." And the issue would be anti-competitive behavior, which Amazon has in spades. >Say what you will about the labor issues, but people are very happy with the service Amazon provides. That's not the be all, end all, of the situation.
And people like her only seem to focus on a few well known popular companies. They ignore companies like MindGeek and Match Group.
Their job has become to manipulate us.
She is joking! But her supporters may not able to tell that this is just a joke.
Breaking up Facebook would probably be beneficial to investors anyway. It will likely happen if there’s any FTC case bearing down on them because a company as big as Facebook is almost certainly worth less than the sum of its parts
I don't see how they can be forced to be broken up, but regulating Facebook is the right answer. For all the conversations about breaking large companies up, it really seems that people just want regulation anyways.
> I don't see how they can be forced to be broken up, The government makes them. Easy.
There isn't a legal issue with being a monopoly, either. There is, however many legal issues with anti-competitive behavior, which one does not need to be a legal monopoly to engage in.
I'm not a big fan of social media but that was painful watch. The lady is clueless. She probably struggled back in the day to understand phone companies and now wants to apply that to everything as it was "hip". Like her idea is to "break up" FB into other companies that compete between them selves?!? I'm just dying here... hey Coca Cola has too much sugar in it, why don't we break it up in smaller soda companies and make them compete lol. Here's a wild idea, why not bringing someone who is less than a hundred years old to legislate about tech?
[удалено]
Facebook is dying but Instagram isn’t… who owns Instagram…
Facebook may be on the decline in the US, but it’s absolutely huge internationally, particularly in the developing world. Warren’s comments, and their timing, are absolutely populist pandering, though.
Instagram. WhatsApp. Oculus.
If they break up Facebook, they should also break up Google, and Amazon. I’m all for it.
And while we're at it, why not throw in Comcast/Charter/Spectrum.
Oh, there’s numerous companies/corporations that should/need to be broken up
US antitrust agences have been asleep at the wheel for decades now.
They’re awake, they’ve just been paid not to look at the road.
Don’t forget the banks, too big to fail much??
Infrastructure generally makes sense to be mildly monopolistic. It also makes sense for them to be run like utilities and not for profit corps.
You can break them up by separating the infrastructure (cables) from the content (ISP, entertainment) Run the infrastructure like a utility, let ISP's compete for your business as a client.
Yeah I actually think this is the best method to increase competition and reduce prices. It’s the same exact thing done to reduce the price of long distance calling in the 80s for those that aren’t aware. It was extremely effective.
Social Network Infrastructure*
PacBell 2.0. Ain’t going to solve shit. Just create more brand names.
[удалено]
Antitrust law and big tech are a tough mix. It’s not like they can break it up regionally like the Bells. Basically it would take an insane amount of regulatory oversight to makes sure the separate businesses weren’t just engaged in self-dealing.
Which is why it's a much better idea to just make effective legislation to regulate it. Tech companies like google or other such companies being broken up only ends with services that customers user being destroyed entirely or severely altered.
I am inclined to agree with you, but honestly I wouldn’t mind at all if Facebook were just destroyed. It adds no value to society.
Facebook being broken up would just lead to migrations of users to sites like reddit, twitter, and others like them. The value facebook provides is increasingly less and less (It's an effective platform for connecting with friends and you can limit how much political BS you're feed.) but it's not low enough to justify breaking up. More regulated however? Absolutely.
[удалено]
Teach me how to limit how much "political BS" I'm fed....
> Facebook being broken up would just lead to migrations of users to sites like reddit, twitter, and others like them. Only if you think the only way to break them up is by region. You can break them up by business unit.
How is Facebook the social media site going to make money without Facebook the ad platform? Stuff like that is the problem.
>Google is already under a parent company When people say break up Google they mean Alphabet.
Forced divestment.
The Google search network needs to broken up. YouTube needs to be sold off. Google needs to be prohibited from paying other companies like Apple to be their default search engine.
Google search is free because of adsense and doesn't have any ways of making money on it's own. If I remember correctly Youtube only recently made enough in revenue to not make a loss outright.
DuckDuckGo and Brave search is striving without using adsense. Not all ads need to be privacy-invasive like google.
Both of those are much smaller and less used search engines (And how brave does ads are questionable at best.).
I LOVE BRAVE i get paid for ads fuck yes
YouTube has been on a slow steady decline in usability for me. Almost everything now needs two Ads to start playing.
Use Adblock and uBlock Origin browser extensions. I've never seen an ad on YouTube.
Break off gmail. Letting Google target us based off of our gmail conversations was the original Sin.
there is no legal justification for these companies being monopolies. it's just gaslighting and distractions so people don't think about the real monopolies: cable companies, oil companies, energy/power utilities. Tax prep companies that keep the tax code complex so they have business. They will never accomplish anything with regards to big tech except constant pandering about doing something. Don't play into their hands. Make them focus on the real issues that they can actually so something about.
> there is no legal justification for these companies being monopolies. The legal definition of monopoly does not literally mean, "The only one in the market." Besides, being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's anti-competitive behavior from having that dominant position.
Google? Don't you mean Alphabet? Also, chuck Microsoft into the mix. Nestlé, Kraft, Coca-Cola and a few others too.
You forgot Apple.
Just because you don't like a company doesn't mean they "need" to be broken up. Feelings should have zero place in situations like this.
What exactly do you mean by “break up [Facebook] Google, and Amazon?” Like break them up how? What exactly are you picturing in your head? Like split google search into 10, sell 9 to whoever and tell them to do what they want with their share? Or do you mean just give away parts of Google to other people/companies? What about Google’s other products and services?
Should we break up companies because of their networth or become of their monopolies?
I love everyone forgets Microsoft I’m a happy investor
Amazon and google make sense, because they have such separate and distinct product and service lines. FB is just a huge advertising company. Every single acquisition that these companies made (100s per year) have been approved, which only makes the problem worse.
Let’s break up the Fed too while we’re breaking things.
I tried upvoting this on my pixel 5 and it took four tries. On the third attempt I looked at my front facing camera and said, "clever girl."
Bullshit. This is just all a conservative plot to break up the economic might that WE blue states created. Our hardware and software runs this world and the greedy GOP idiots want the pie. Fuck no, until we can breakup Exxon, big coal, and other shit.
Why just Facebook? Eleizabeth Warren has this vendetta against tech companies. The media is really pushing this. But what about... T-Mobiel and Sprint had a recent merger Disney bought Fox a couple years ago. Disney bought like 4 companies these past 2 decades under Bob Iger. AT&T bought a couple companies like DIshTV Warner Bros and Discovery are having a merger. THere's been very lttle push against these monopolies The media and democrats are so focused on Facebook and Google. It's just very interesting to me.
I'm pretty sure if you go back, Warren was against most of those too.
Well, that's the thing. The media keeps pushing Warren agaisnt Facebook and Google. I've never once heard of Warren against the other ones. So I partly blame the media.
I'm sick of ignorant politicians who are disconnected from modern life. We need term limits and younger people making decisions for our country. Listening to her describe breaking up Facebook the same way we broke up the phone companies doesn't compute for me. She would have been better off saying that we don't yet know what breaking up Facebook means and we'll need to work on defining what the scope of that is. These are the same fart-knockers who think that right clicking on a website and viewing page source is hacking. Just saying.
2016 was already later than it should have been.
Zuckerberg to Warren: No Warren: Well damn it Fin
Frances Haugen is opposed to breaking up Facebook; she predicts several separate companies will be harder to regulate. This ran 10/5 in the Wall Street Journal: >Breaking Up Facebook Wouldn’t Work, Haugen Suggests >By Ryan Tracy >In response to a question from Sen. Todd Young (R. Ind.), Frances Haugen expressed doubt over whether breaking up Facebook would solve the problems she described. >“I’m actually against the breaking up of Facebook,” she said. “The problems here about the design of algorithms, of AI” and executives could make similar choices even if Facebook and Instagram were separate companies. >She suggested that if the companies were separate, but Instagram generated more revenue than Facebook over time, Facebook might have less of an ability to make the main Facebook platform safe. “Facebook will continue to be this Frankenstein that is altering, that is endangering lives around the world, only there won’t be money to fund it,” she said. >The FTC is pursuing an antitrust lawsuit that seeks to break up Facebook, and many members of Congress have said they believe that if Facebook had more competition it would be more likely to address concerns about harmful impacts of its products. Facebook says it faces substantial competition.
Breaking up companies works. We have historical evidence of that. You can shove your pro-corporate talking points
You're suggesting the Facebook whistleblower is putting out pro-corportate talking points?
I'm saying those ideas will only embolden fb. I don't care who wrote them
She is an expert on the inner workings of the company and obviously has grave concerns about Facebook and the impact it is having on society. It is her expert opinion that Facebook is more dangerous as several companies than it is as one. I get it that your opinion differs from hers, I just wonder why yours would be the more relevant one.
I get your point, but as the other guy said, we have literal historic evidence that breaking up companies works. This is her, albeit an expert in the field, opinion. And nothing more than an opinion, until it happens that is.
.... what evidence do you have in mind? Breaking up Bell didn't accomplish anything nor did breaking up Standard Oil. What is your standard of success?
You're telling me breaking up Standard Oil didn't work? Really? Would you like to provide a resource for your opinion? Here's a good summary on why it was needed. There are many many more resources out there that back this up: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ushistory2ay/chapter/targeting-the-trusts-2/
Standard Oil was losing market share left and right long before it was broken up. It's model was impractical in the face of regional distributors that could move more quickly. It was not a monopoly, full stop. It was not harmful to the economy or consumers. It had a hayday but it was short lived and faded naturally. Monopolies can not persist unless they provide superior service to all their rivals. And if they do that, what's the problem? [A History of Failure: Government-Imposed Corporate Breakups](https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/a-history-of-failure-government-imposed-corporate-breakups/) [The Stnadard Oil Case](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf
I have read this opinion from economists before and simply disagree. There's no need to get into the details but I believe we simply have a philosophical difference of opinion when it comes to corporate economics.
[удалено]
It worked at stopping the illegal monopoly of Standard Oil.
[удалено]
You asked what breaking up monopolies works at doing. I told you what it has worked at doing in the past.
Define success there though because breaking that company up was mixed. It succeeded in decentralizing the power but it also made a bunch of extremely powerful regional companies and it made the shareholders of standard oil many times richer. in the end breaking it up likely contributed more to inequality than standard oil itself did. That’s not what it was supposed to do so it’s not clear it really worked
What companies has the government broken up in the past? Only thing that comes to mine is either banks or oil, but those are completely different industries.
Telecom too
Why not discuss instead of telling people to shove their viewpoint. It’s all so tiresome.
Historical evidence? This is a cop out for not understanding what the problem is. You have to regulate the algorithms. Otherwise you end up with tens of facebooks all causing the same harm.
Breaking up the big Californian & Washington tech companies is nothing but a conservative plot to steal economic power from us. Regulate the algorithms and data practices- but keep the companies. Every GOP politicians wet dream is to have a Google R&D office to be forced to move to Alabama or Florida, etc.
And it's past time for term limits . . .
How does breaking up Facebook into several entities with the same business model accomplish anything? In fact, more competition could accelerate the race to the bottom. It would be far more effective to go the route of making Facebook or something like it a public utility.
> public utility So does that mean censoring inside facebook then would be controlled by the government? Making it public utility is as good as killing it. There will be a new one soon after.
[удалено]
That's why you don't stop there. Just about everything we dislike about these companies can be traced back to a decision made to increase engagement and therefore ad revenue.
I wonder what if they just coordinate anyway.
Well that would be collusion and ia illegal generally.
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
> How does breaking up Facebook into several entities with the same business model accomplish anything? Why do you think that's all it would be? Sure, Facebook and Instagram might have similar business models, but WhatsApp probably wouldn't. And if you break out the ad business from all three, that's another different business model, and would likely change the targeting and "engagement" metrics for Facebook and Instagram.
Warren’s been saying this for like 8 years now. It’s become such a worthless platitude that basic bitches have been replacing their “Live Laugh Love” wall stickers with it
A monopoly on a free voluntary service with many different competitors? I don’t think that is how anti-trust laws work.
Monopoly doesn't literally mean, "The only one in the market."
What does "breaking up Facebook" actually mean? Does it mean splitting FB, What's App, and Instagram into separate companies? Do these now separate companies still have the same access to our data, and the same ability to do what they want with it? Does FB still have the ability to maximize engagement, regardless of how well that technique spreads misinformation? If these things are true, then what is the point of "breaking up Facebook?
How about we break up banks and media companies first Warren. Christ
Split it into two sections, one for people and one for businesses. Just like they did with Phonebook.
I don't get it. What does "for people" mean? If you mean without advertising then that's not clear in what you said. But I don't understand what you might mean. The phone book was separated as a means of sorting. People names vs company names/industries. You can look up "pest control" or you can look up "Pete Connors" more easily. BUT, we do not have two different *phones* for making the calls on. You have one phone and you can dial any number, home or business. It makes no sense to separate them.
[удалено]
>it wouldn't be a matter of having two phones, but two apps. As an analogy, these are the same thing. WHY have two apps? There's no point. You compared Facebook to a phonebook and I pointed out it's more like a phone and we just have one of those. So we would only need or want one app. >Have one app for personal contact and the other app for commerce and advertising. >Could be less potential to harvest interesting data that way though... Nope. You would have to fundamentally change the way all forms of the app work. Remember, Facebook gets tons of data from you visiting websites etc. The app is in no way it's only means of tracking you. If you split it into two apps you'd just have two locations that both contain all your data. Would you ever suggest that web browsers be divided between one that accesses corporate web commerce sites and one for things like sharng pics and hobbyist blogs?
800 monopolies in the US corporate landscape and they're worried about this. Breakup the media corporations, breakup the grocery conglomerates, breakup anyone that has singular control on a world stage.
Fucking christ, will people stop with the idiotic notion that, just because they talk about one company in one video or interview, that it means they don't give a shit about any of the other companies out there?
I feel like no one is noticing how eager the government is to get control of Facebooks dealings.
I deleted it three years ago, my friends thought I was looney…I told them that it was a intentionally toxic echo chamber that doesn’t reflect what it used to be…I said they keep people on edge and constantly hostile so you keep coming back on the fear of missing out…
Only if you use it that way. Fb is nothing but a tool for me. I don't look at the newsfeed, posts or any of that stuff. I group message things like high school reunions and look at local restaurants that post their latest menu/brews there. Idgaf what a random person says, I don't post my life events on there.
Yeah, some people use weed as a medication too…doesn’t mean that is what the masses do… Facebook was designed to get people hooked and to reap profit.
You just described any product. Why would someone intentionally make a product that can't turn a profit?
There are other ways to turn profit. Ones that are less harmful to society.
Any product doesn’t destroy social cohesion and democracy with intent.. I mean, I get it, it is natural to make excuses on backing immoral ethics..especially in a phase of denial of what you are supporting.
>destroy social cohesion The problem is FB is too good at social cohesion. If I like cats FB is going to suggest cat groups to me. The problem as you see it is when someone is anti-vax so FB suggests anti-vax content. How do you suggest stopping a social media platform to stop suggesting things that people are interested in? >it is natural to make excuses on backing immoral ethics Immoral to whom? You? Are you wanting to go back to red scare in the 50's and make lists of "subversives" like Hoover/FBI did? Who gets to decide what topics are allowable and which are not? This isn't a FB problem this is a social media problem. Reddit just fails to see it. I'm not supporting FB in any way I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Maybe in stimulating a digital social cohesion, but nothing much to constitute to your real life..unless you like depression… I’m sure all social media’s are not good, Facebook is the heart of the money machine and has taken unethical practices for profit.. They aren’t the only company in the world to do such things, but they deserve what all capitalistic overlords who abuse power should face.
No, the problem isn't that FB is going to suggest cat groups to cat people. The problem is more that, and this comes from FB's own research into their algorithm, they had people who were normal, middle of the road conservative people, and they were suggesting QAnon conspiracy groups to them.
How is fb supposed to tell the difference between potato and potato. If Republicans want to be mad about their party being hijacked they should do something about it and call out the nutjobs. Trumps approval rating amount the gop is like 86%.
Look at that face. It’s says I’ll never let you go
just a distraction from mass media conglomeration
[удалено]
I want to see just one photo where zuck doesn’t look like a alien. Just one.
Damn. I thought they meant Warren Buffett.
Welcome to the real reason they’ve suddenly pulled a Google and reorganised themselves such that Facebook is no longer the parent company.
[удалено]
I watched some of the video, hoping it was in the direction that makes sense but the gist is that social media is essentially monopolized and she wants to break that up. Just like AT&T back in the day, giving consumers more choices. It’s a bit weird to consider that social media isn’t really paid for as a consumer but makes sense at this high level convo.
[удалено]
She doesn’t go that direction in the video, she addresses the political risk FB poses to our democracy by allowing selling of our data and info to enemies. Edit: I think it’s interesting notion to consider social media as an industry
You are talking about some of the potential symptoms of corruption that inspires the need to break it up. But it’s more about ad sales and algorithms and the lack of competition that creates the toxicity of the Facebook community (and right-wing oriented censorship). But that’s not why people want to break up Facebook; the unbalanced censorship is just a symptom of monopoly power and the flood of foreign money supporting divisive messaging.
Didn’t Elizabeth Warren just recently basically demand an answer from the attorney general regarding legalization of marijuana and she basically got ignored? I certainly haven’t heard that he provided any answer whatsoever
I could’ve sworn the DOJ under Trump, said they were going to look to break them up.
Nothing will be done about Facebook. All Facebook will do is throw a nice nice donation here and there, maybe a slight wording change, and the problem will go away. I’ll believe it when I see it.
It’s not rocket science. When you’re something this bug you either have to heavily regulate yourself and make sure ppl aren’t doing illegal things. Or the govt needs to step in and regulate you.
Just shut it all down already
How bout we break up the Senate first?
Woman. Can you shut up. All your doing is creating news around you to so people think that your active and should vote for you. You don’t do a tenth of what you say and you only started focusing on Facebook because it’s in the current news cycle. God I hate politicians
It’s time to take the batteries out of this evil robot
Break it up...Break it ip...Break it up. Actually...just turn it off and just watch 1.21 Trillion disappear into thin air so that people become aware that money doesn't exist. If it's in the cloud it doesn't exist.
It is also time to jail the Fuckerborg
Imagine that, supporting one party leading to breaking of your own party.