3 ms·

> I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google. Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook? The article does not a

by ardy42 8y ago

> I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google. Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook? The article does not argue against breaking up Google, in fact it says: > Finally, an aggressive case against Facebook would persuade other behemoths like Google and Amazon to think twice about stifling competition in their own sectors, out of fear that they could be next. It's basically saying Google's next if it doesn't mend its ways.

dominotw 8y ago
> It's basically saying Google's next I don't think that answers GP's question though, why is facebook first? Why is facebook the chosen one. Surely it wasn't chosen using random number generator.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > why is facebook first? > Why is facebook the chosen one. Surely it wasn't chosen using random number generator. It's it obvious? It's been far more transparently shameless. > I don't think that answers GP's question though, It does. The op was asking a why/why not question. He didn't even mention the concept of sequence.
  - josh2600 8y ago
    I was musing philosophically. I know why Facebook is first and google isn’t on the chopping block. It’s because people don’t have the same relationship with google. No one is accusing google of colluding with foreign powers to sabotage democracy. It’s funny, right? If google had the best ad targeting during 2016, they would be on the crucifix right now just like Facebook, but they didn’t (maybe you can argue google ads aren’t as useful or as visceral as fb ads, but I think it’s complicated). You might argue that google wouldn’t work with the Russians, but that’s not obvious to me that Facebook did that intentionally either. There but for fortune.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  > why is facebook first? Because the article's written by a Facebook co-founder and the framing here is therefore through that lens? I think any of the others could have (and have been previously) chosen as the one to focus on. On a more philosophical point, Facebook is very "personal". The core money-making business acts of Google and Amazon are focused around intent to do something, whereas Facebook's entire raison d'etre is to monopolise the whole gamut of your daily interaction. That's not to say the others aren't either, but it's so explicit to who Facebook is, they're an easier one to focus on first.

by ardy42 8y ago

dominotw 8y ago

> It's basically saying Google's next I don't think that answers GP's question though, why is facebook first? Why is facebook the chosen one. Surely it wasn't chosen using random number generator.

ardy42 8y ago
> why is facebook first? > Why is facebook the chosen one. Surely it wasn't chosen using random number generator. It's it obvious? It's been far more transparently shameless. > I don't think that answers GP's question though, It does. The op was asking a why/why not question. He didn't even mention the concept of sequence.
- josh2600 8y ago
  I was musing philosophically. I know why Facebook is first and google isn’t on the chopping block. It’s because people don’t have the same relationship with google. No one is accusing google of colluding with foreign powers to sabotage democracy. It’s funny, right? If google had the best ad targeting during 2016, they would be on the crucifix right now just like Facebook, but they didn’t (maybe you can argue google ads aren’t as useful or as visceral as fb ads, but I think it’s complicated). You might argue that google wouldn’t work with the Russians, but that’s not obvious to me that Facebook did that intentionally either. There but for fortune.
wastedhours 8y ago
> why is facebook first? Because the article's written by a Facebook co-founder and the framing here is therefore through that lens? I think any of the others could have (and have been previously) chosen as the one to focus on. On a more philosophical point, Facebook is very "personal". The core money-making business acts of Google and Amazon are focused around intent to do something, whereas Facebook's entire raison d'etre is to monopolise the whole gamut of your daily interaction. That's not to say the others aren't either, but it's so explicit to who Facebook is, they're an easier one to focus on first.