2 ms·

So... this article is a good example of how ??!? it gets once you move from "We gotta do something about these tech monopolies" into the "what should we do?" ph

So... this article is a good example of how ??!? it gets once you move from "We gotta do something about these tech monopolies" into the "what should we do?" phase. How exactly "do* you break up a Google or a FB so that (only one possible reason, but the one cited here) they don't control too much media/mind share?^ Laws usually want to be general, and my suggestion doesn't necessarily lend to that, but I'll suggest it anyway. Facebook doesn't need to be broken up into several companies. It can just be shut down. I don't mean that it should (justice-wise) be shut down. I just mean that we won't lack for social media. We will have social media alternatives the day after FB shuts down. Theres a chance we'll get something more open instead. There's a good chance we'll get several small replacements instead. There is 0-chance that we'll lack for ways to share posts and post pictures. This isn't Bell, where we need to keep the phones working. The phones will work fine with or without Facebook. There is no need for a company to generate $70bn in revenue, in order for us to have social media. That's a key difference from all antitrust cases of the past. YouTube is another sort of example. If it shuts down, alternatives will pop up with immediately...maybe open ones. There are justice questions (is it fair to shareholders/employees/zuck?) There are legal validity questions (why FB and not apple?). But, for the practical questions... the problem is an easy one. ^fwiw, I also think this is the most worrying part. These companies have a tremendous control about how and what people think. They make Murdoch media look quaint.

empath75 7y ago
> How exactly "do* you break up a Google or a FB so that (only one possible reason, but the one cited here) they don't control too much media/mind share?^ The problem isn't so much that google has a monopoly on search as that they abuse the monopoly to force their way into new businesses. Force google to spin search off as a separate entity from the rest of the company.
- dalbasal 7y ago
  Isn't it? I'm not even sure that "monopoly" is the right frame. Google's "price" in their high market share areas (eg search) is free anyway. To me, the problem is power, not necessarily market/pricing power or even exclusion power. The problem is that the "public square" is essentially a handful of private monopolies. What Google considers "inappropriate" is banned or disadvantaged on YouTube. What FB (or Twitter) considers distasteful can become absent from the public or political debate. It's no joke, at this point. Things "woke up" when it seemed that shady stuff happened during trump's election. But.. several revolutions had already started on social media, coups, counter-coups, civil wars. 10s of thousands of public officials around the world have been elected on FB. That is a lot of power in very few hands, under a veil of secrecy, often with bad incentives. It was cheap printed paphlets and union halls that made fascists-vs-communist street fights a thing in the 30s... mediums. These days, an algorithm notices that telling (proverbial) fascists about communists is good for engagement... And the algorithm optimizes. I'm not accusing them of doing this deliberately doing this, but the feed algorithms optimize this way for a reason.. incentive.
twblalock 7y ago
I have zero faith that any new social media ecosystem that emerges in the absence of Facebook would be more secure, or more private -- especially if the new ecosystem consists of multiple independent services sharing data (and if it doesn't turn out that way, that means a new monopoly emerged). A single large company is also easier to regulate than a bunch of smaller ones. If you are concerned about monopoly power over social media, go ahead and break up Facebook. If you are concerned about privacy and the security of social media data, you are probably better off regulating Facebook and raising high barriers to anyone who wants access to Facebook's data.

empath75 7y ago

> How exactly "do* you break up a Google or a FB so that (only one possible reason, but the one cited here) they don't control too much media/mind share?^ The problem isn't so much that google has a monopoly on search as that they abuse the monopoly to force their way into new businesses. Force google to spin search off as a separate entity from the rest of the company.

dalbasal 7y ago
Isn't it? I'm not even sure that "monopoly" is the right frame. Google's "price" in their high market share areas (eg search) is free anyway. To me, the problem is power, not necessarily market/pricing power or even exclusion power. The problem is that the "public square" is essentially a handful of private monopolies. What Google considers "inappropriate" is banned or disadvantaged on YouTube. What FB (or Twitter) considers distasteful can become absent from the public or political debate. It's no joke, at this point. Things "woke up" when it seemed that shady stuff happened during trump's election. But.. several revolutions had already started on social media, coups, counter-coups, civil wars. 10s of thousands of public officials around the world have been elected on FB. That is a lot of power in very few hands, under a veil of secrecy, often with bad incentives. It was cheap printed paphlets and union halls that made fascists-vs-communist street fights a thing in the 30s... mediums. These days, an algorithm notices that telling (proverbial) fascists about communists is good for engagement... And the algorithm optimizes. I'm not accusing them of doing this deliberately doing this, but the feed algorithms optimize this way for a reason.. incentive.

twblalock 7y ago

I have zero faith that any new social media ecosystem that emerges in the absence of Facebook would be more secure, or more private -- especially if the new ecosystem consists of multiple independent services sharing data (and if it doesn't turn out that way, that means a new monopoly emerged). A single large company is also easier to regulate than a bunch of smaller ones. If you are concerned about monopoly power over social media, go ahead and break up Facebook. If you are concerned about privacy and the security of social media data, you are probably better off regulating Facebook and raising high barriers to anyone who wants access to Facebook's data.