3 ms·
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
by dymk 8y ago
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.
- saghm 8y agoWouldn't the point of breaking those into separate companies be to _prevent_ them from hooking into the same backend?
- jdavis703 8y agoWhat if they break FB, IG, Messenger and WhatsApp in to separate companies. They also spin out Facebook Ad Solutions Inc. or whatever it’s called to sell ads to all those separate companies along with anyone else who wants to display FB ads. This isn’t to say that this is what will happen, but it’s one potential.
- Dahoon 8y agoIf they are broken up like this Google could sell ads to be shown on those platforms too.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> 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.
- nopriorarrests 8y ago>If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. I mean, if anything, competition will lower the price per contact with potential voter? What problem it will solve?
- dymk 8y agoHow in the world is that enforceable, or legal?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mirimir 8y agoWell, there was the Bell System. But arguably that didn't work as planned. And it probably couldn't happen today. But regulation as a public utility might work.