10 ms·
Zuckerberg Hates Warren’s Plan to Break Up Facebook. She Doesn’t Care
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dantheman 7y agoIt's always amazing to watch people who have never created anything tell others how it's done.
- shaneprrlt 7y agoWarren has always taken a stand against founders, whether of companies or the ones who wrote our constitution.
- ahartmetz 7y agoSome people need to be told to stop creating what they create because it's a net negative. Can you understand that?
- 0-_-0 7y agoIs Facebook a net negative?
- viklove 7y agoYes
- 0-_-0 7y ago2.7 Billion people disagree
- happytoexplain 7y agoThe notion that having a Facebook account means you think Facebook does not need regulating nor makes significant negative contributions to society seems absurd.
- 0-_-0 7y agoWhat made you think I think that?
- happytoexplain 7y agoCan you ask a more specific question? I don't have enough information about what part of the reply chain we have different interpretations of.
- rmilejczz 7y agoDo you think the most correct answer is the same as the loudest one? And besides, you can use Facebook and still believe it should be broken up, those aren’t mutually exclusive things.
- 0-_-0 7y agoSure, but I responded to: > Some people need to be told to stop creating what they create because it's a net negative. because I thought it was a bad argument, like most arguments here.
- untog 7y agoDo you think every Comcast subscriber loves their service?
- JohnFen 7y agoI guess that's the underlying question. In my view, it definitely is. Others may reasonably differ.
- happytoexplain 7y agoIn its current form, absolutely. That's not to say it needs to be destroyed.
- lidHanteyk 7y agoYes; they enabled the Rohingya genocide.
- 0-_-0 7y agoThey enabled communication, communication enabled the Rohingya genocide. Do you think communication is a net negative?
- happytoexplain 7y agoI don't think it's fair to hold a criticism of Facebook accountable to the terms that it be equally applicable to the abstract and more vast concept of "communication". Maybe the parent thinks Facebook had, or could have had with enough foresight, the technical capability to mitigate the issue more, but failed to act with such initiative or scale. That might reasonably be an argument for how Facebook is a "net negative", even though the concept of ever freer, wider, and frictionless communication is not necessarily a "net negative".
- Volundr 7y agoActually she's not "telling him how it's done". She makes no claim to be able to make a better Facebook. What she is doing is saying she believes that tech companies have become large enough that they are engaging in monopolistic behavior. Note: I'm not sold on breaking up the big tech companies. But saying she's "telling Zuckerbeg how it's done" is blatantly misconstruing her position.
- dguest 7y agoTo be fair, she's not telling Zuckerburg how to run Facebook. She's saying an external entity (with a very different mandate) should regulate Facebook.
- beatgammit 7y agoI hate Facebook as much as most who call for it to be broken up, but I absolutely disagree with breaking them up. We just need a few legal adjustments to make sure consumers are protected, and we should be good to go.
- untog 7y agoIt's always amazing to watch people who have never committed crimes try to solve them. See how much sense that statement makes?
- dingo_bat 7y agoAh communists! Always trying to destroy other people's hardwork. How charming!
- oarabbus_ 7y agoLet's break up the big Tech giants, but leave Big Banking and Big Pharma alone (for example)? How come Comcast gets to operate as an ISP and Telecom and suppress competition, but Google, Amazon, and Facebook are illegal monopolies that need to allegedly be broken up by Government? It reeks of targeting.
- supercanuck 7y agoWhat value is Facebook bringing to the world, honestly? Isn’t it just a skinner box that they’ve attached ads to?
- oarabbus_ 7y ago...and this is justification for the government to break up the company, is that the claim being made here?
- supercanuck 7y agoWe the people have the ability to break up a company. The company serves the people. This is why we elect other people to represent our interests. What value does a virtual skinner box serve? I think at one point Facebook did have value, then it changed
- oarabbus_ 7y agoYou seem to be advocating for increased government interference in the private sector, because a company doesn't "provide value". Who gets to decide which companies are "valuable" and which are "worthless" and to be broken up by government? Your line of thought is utterly terrifying to me, quite frankly.
- supercanuck 7y agoTHE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. The people, through, free and fair elections can fix market failures
- ng12 7y agoI'm not sure why she's so gung-ho on this. I can't imagine it's a popular issue with the average voter, especially when tech is one of the last true paths to the middle class Americans have left. On the other hand even my tech illiterate family members would like to see Comcast taken down a few pegs.
- happytoexplain 7y agoIsn't she also targeting Comcast? I know she's made similar criticisms of them, but maybe I'm just assuming that means she wants to go after them explicitly.
- ng12 7y agoThe most recent article I can find on the issue is from 2016. She's definitely cooled it on Comcast/Verizon since.
- happytoexplain 7y agoThat's unfortunate - I agree ISPs would be a more poplar target on both sides of the aisle.
- hello_friendos 7y agoWhere did she say she would ban technology. Splitting up a company that has become too large is a good thing for competition.
- supercanuck 7y agoBecause it is affecting how people in the United States consume information and that is affecting the functioning of our democracy
- js2 7y agoSee the "A Public Option for Broadband" section here: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural
- js2 7y agoHere's Warren's actual proposal: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/break-up-big-tech https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/break-up-big-tech First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform. Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.” These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties. For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform. To enforce these new requirements, federal regulators, State Attorneys General, or injured private parties would have the right to sue a platform utility to enjoin any conduct that violates these requirements, to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and to be paid for losses and damages. A company found to violate these requirements would also have to pay a fine of 5 percent of annual revenue. Amazon Marketplace, Google’s ad exchange, and Google Search would be platform utilities under this law. Therefore, Amazon Marketplace and Basics, and Google’s ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart. Google Search would have to be spun off as well. Second, my administration would appoint regulators committed to reversing illegal and anti-competitive tech mergers. Current antitrust laws empower federal regulators to break up mergers that reduce competition. I will appoint regulators who are committed to using existing tools to unwind anti-competitive mergers, including: Amazon: Whole Foods; Zappos Facebook: WhatsApp; Instagram Google: Waze; Nest; DoubleClick Unwinding these mergers will promote healthy competition in the market — which will put pressure on big tech companies to be more responsive to user concerns, including about privacy. She also isn't just going after large tech companies. She's also going after large banks and ISPs. It's laughable to claim that she isn't on the side of the American consumer after she almost single handily spearheaded the CFPB. Re banking: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accountable https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accoun... Re ISPs: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural (See "A Public Option for Broadband") I'm sure big pharma is covered too. Aside: I have no idea what a President Warren would realistically be able to enact, but her goal is not to destroy the free market. Recall that she was a Republican for a long time. She wants to use government as a referee to ensure fair competition in the market, and to fill in the gaps the market doesn't provide. That's my take on her anyway.
- fossuser 7y agoRead the leaked transcript from Facebook yourself, it's much better than these takes from the press: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20892354/mark-zuckerberg-full-transcript-leaked-facebook-meetings https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20892354/mark-zuckerberg-... I'm impressed by Zuckerberg's candidness and the depth he goes into explaining how he's thinking about things, and that he does this every week. He seems like a good CEO.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- haolez 7y agoCouldn’t these companies simply migrate to other countries and operate from there?
- einpoklum 7y agoNo, if the US wanted to shake things up. Just look at what they're doing to Iranian entities and to European companies which are supposedly protected and encouraged by their governments to engage with Iran. And with Facebook and similar companies having lots of infrastracture and personnel in the US, the government wouldn't have to go nearly that far. However - let's remember the US is actually extremely lax with large corporations, in Tech, finance, pharma etc., and lets them get away with murder, basically. I wouldn't trust Warren all that much in this respect considering her reliance on large donors and her defense of the democratic party establishment and the Clinton campaign.
- vernie 7y agoI'm sure those internal Q&A's were nice while they lasted.
- einpoklum 7y agoWhat an "objective" title. I wonder who the NYT supports for Democratic presidential nominee.
- chriselles 7y agoScott Galloway at NYU Stern was interviewed on Business Casual podcast. He makes a compelling argument for anti-trust net positive value creation. https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2019/09/23/business-casual-episode-1-transcript-breakup https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2019/09/23/busines...
- steveads 7y agoI'm unpersuaded by Warren's arguments for breaking up big tech. If her strongest concerns are that the big tech companies are anti-competitive and loose wrt privacy I think Tyler Cowen makes some strong counter arguments. 1. The big tech companies are not true monopolies. They simply offer a better service than current competitors. It's hardly set in stone that Facebook, for instance, will continue to hold it's majority in social networking. 2. I'd trust a large company like Google who has stronger data protection policies in place than the smaller alternative also in the same space. 3. Breaking up or regulating more strongly distracts some of the most productive and innovative companies.
- xemoka 7y agoExcept, that 1) the network effect and critical mass make it next to impossible to gain any kind of foothold: your product must be better feature-wise, and it must have the same people or interface with the old—something Facebook has no interest in (look at Ello, G+, orkut, etc). Replacing Facebook wholesale with a "better product" has huge risk; 2) when companies can take into the economy of scale, they can start making money off of aspects that are not profitable at smaller scales (think usage data, advertising analytics, etc). I could see how limiting the size, or breaking up "predatory" businesses as a potential hard-line solution; 3) the most "productive and innovative" companies are looking to either carve parts of Facebook off into new products (think how airBNB, tindr, etc, essentially came from Craigslist's boards, but now targeted) or something tangential that can leverage Facebook, the difference here being that Facebook is far more aggressive at maintaining its moat and has a more financial interest in it (they must maintain there current company size/status). It seems that even when Facebook does something poorly (events? buy-and-sell?), they can use their network effect (1) to their ultimate advantage.
- steveads 7y agoThanks for your feedback. You definitely make some good points that I understand, but probably just don't weight as heavily as you do. 1) Gaining critical mass is definitely a barrier to entry for competition. I'm just less sold that Facebook's current popularity is not due to it's foothold in the space vs it's utility. 2) Economy of scale is what allows these companies to offer their services to me as 'free'. I don't really mind that Facebook or Google have taken something that is useless to me (my personal browsing history, locations, likes, etc) and found a way to monetize it if I get to use their platform for free in return. 3) I'm not sure that breaking up big tech would significantly discourage their 'moat maintaining' behavior. If anything, with additional competition introduced, wouldn't there be even more incentive to put time and resource into maintaining what majority they have?
- matthewfelgate 7y agoWhy break up Facebook but not say, the far more powerful Microsoft?
- iron0013 7y agoReally funny to see how this had been an overwhelmingly popular idea on Hacker News, until a progressive Democrat (and a woman!) voiced it, then suddenly many here have "concerns"
- k2xl 7y agoI think you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because people have concerns with her argument doesn't mean it is because she is a democrat or a woman. I suggest you argue with the substance of the arguments that she or Mark are making.