4 ms·

Facebook announces its strategy to prevent future competition, by pressing governments to introduce regulations so opaque, open to interpretation, and difficult

by grej 8y ago

Facebook announces its strategy to prevent future competition, by pressing governments to introduce regulations so opaque, open to interpretation, and difficult to implement, that no company other than a mature large established player with ample resources could hope to meet them.

adventured 8y ago
No question. They captured two billion users, they're starting to see usage signs of developed market erosion (where all of their money comes from), now they want to use government powers to permanently enshrine their place (ensure that those two billion users have nowhere else to go). At this point Facebook has everything to lose from competition and nothing to gain from it. The regulatory capture approach pivot is a key indication they feel like they've fully fleshed out their social monopoly using traditional means. They can no longer purchase major competitors, due to anti-trust issues. They will never be allowed to buy/own the next Instagram or YouTube type companies, so from their perspective they only have to gain from using the government to pre-emptively destroy those companies from being birthed in the first place (or at a minimum severely hamper them). Regulate the hell out of me please, just guarantee me that you'll restrict competition in the process with tall enough barriers. It's a deal that governments go for every time and without exception. The power to control speech, news, expression on the world's largest media platform will prove irresistible and Facebook knows it. It aligns the always persistent desire by governments for censorship and control with Facebook's desire to never compete again.
wallace_f 8y ago
Exactly, it's called regulatory capture. It's a huge problem in America. In Arizona, a man was jailed for giving haircuts to the homeless. A license to provide a service needs to be the exception, not the rule.
Aqua 8y ago
That's probably only half of the story. Facebook is already a monopoly and with their endless resources they don't need government's help to marginalise their competition. I suspect the real reason is preemptive strike, Zuckerberg calls for something that was already coming whether he likes it or not, this way he controls the narrative and puts Facebook in a positive light.

by grej 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

No question. They captured two billion users, they're starting to see usage signs of developed market erosion (where all of their money comes from), now they want to use government powers to permanently enshrine their place (ensure that those two billion users have nowhere else to go). At this point Facebook has everything to lose from competition and nothing to gain from it. The regulatory capture approach pivot is a key indication they feel like they've fully fleshed out their social monopoly using traditional means. They can no longer purchase major competitors, due to anti-trust issues. They will never be allowed to buy/own the next Instagram or YouTube type companies, so from their perspective they only have to gain from using the government to pre-emptively destroy those companies from being birthed in the first place (or at a minimum severely hamper them). Regulate the hell out of me please, just guarantee me that you'll restrict competition in the process with tall enough barriers. It's a deal that governments go for every time and without exception. The power to control speech, news, expression on the world's largest media platform will prove irresistible and Facebook knows it. It aligns the always persistent desire by governments for censorship and control with Facebook's desire to never compete again.

wallace_f 8y ago

Exactly, it's called regulatory capture. It's a huge problem in America. In Arizona, a man was jailed for giving haircuts to the homeless. A license to provide a service needs to be the exception, not the rule.

Aqua 8y ago

That's probably only half of the story. Facebook is already a monopoly and with their endless resources they don't need government's help to marginalise their competition. I suspect the real reason is preemptive strike, Zuckerberg calls for something that was already coming whether he likes it or not, this way he controls the narrative and puts Facebook in a positive light.