8 ms·

Leaked Zuckerberg audio: 'You go to the mat and you fight'

67 points by sjcsjc 7y ago

rollingdeep 7y ago
BBC coverage on this is a bit minimal and lazy. Posted already here with more coverage on Zuckerberg's comments about suing the government and election interference. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244
- rr-geil-j 7y ago
  > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 It's already deleted.
  - dang 7y ago
    It was flagged by users—correctly so, because this seems like just back-and-forth political ephemera, of the sort that the HN guidelines explain is off topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The test on HN for whether a new development in an ongoing story counts as on topic is whether the new article adds significant new information: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22significant%20new%20information%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... When that happens, it will surely be fully discussed on HN.
    - rollingdeep 7y ago
      Dang, that is not a stringent test any of kind. It is highly arbitrary. It is a list of your previous decisions on whether a post is new information—most of which are simply declarations of your decision and provide no stringent rules to test. It also doesn’t explain why the previous topic was locked and deleted. This new information had just been broken and not posted here before with the specific story coverage on Zuckerberg’s election interference comments. All that had been posted before was the raw audio leak/transcripts but not real journalism coverage of the significance like techcrunch. Theverge literally had one sentence of journalistic coverage on this: “In language that is often more candid than he typically uses in his public comments, Zuckerberg seeks to rally the company against Facebook’s competitors, critics, and the US government.” And because it’s in every readers interest to be informed why certain actions are taken, I have no option but to show the community the rest of the conversation here which I don’t see you giving any attention to in your post (which is concerning). https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162442/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133765 https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162442/https://news.ycom... https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162822/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162822/https://news.ycom... >rollingdeep: Article is opinionated as many on HN but represents an important current news story to discuss. By all means the source can be substituted for a less opinionated one if an alternative source of similar coverage exists (I did not find any at the time). I have not found a negative comment that does not misquote the article, nor is anyone able to reply with correct info or bring more substance in response such as the disturbing history of antitrust lawsuits funded by Microsoft that surpass even the funding by the government. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 >dang: This seems to me to be political back-and-forth of the moment and therefore off topic by the site guidelines. Sorry; I understand that interpretations of these things can differ. Daniel (moderator) >rollingdeep: So you are saying you would not have allowed the coverage of the Microsoft antitrust suits at the time on HN (if HN existed in the 1990’s and early 2000’s)? If find that difficult to believe. >dang: I'm not saying that. What antitrust suit is happening right now? I was under the impression that there isn't one yet; just political sniping between advocates for either side of one which may or may not happen. Daniel >rollingdeep: Google and Facebook are currently being investigated by by 50 attorney generals (of 50 U.S. states) in an antitrust probe. That is more than political sniping. These new comments by Zuckerberg are a direct result of this regulatory action that is already in motion, which would obviously come under even closer scrutiny under a Warren presidency (she is the current leading candidate in the U.S. polls). The story here is: 1: Zuckerberg openly talks about funding a major legal battle that would very likely outsize any normal regulatory budgets (that are more or less fixed in size) to enforce U.S. antitrust regulations—similar to how Microsoft was able to escape regulatory interventions by funding a legal war of attrition against the U.S. government, even though the anticompetitive behavior was well known and evident. 2: Zuckerberg talks about not being able to control election influences in the face of a breakup. This is rather odd considering that he testified that nefarious election influence via facebook was not a serious threat. It implies there is power to influence elections and there are implications suggesting FB may use this power for their own purposes or as a bargaining chip in regulatory actions. Again, this is more than political sniping. >dang: When said antitrust probe generates significant new information, that will be on topic on HN and get lots of discussion. Articles about what candidates say during election campaigns, not so much. If we're to treat all those as on topic, there won't be room for anything else. Warren said some stuff; Zuckerberg said some stuff; Warren said some more stuff. Politicians and CEOs say lots of things. I don't think that meets the bar for significant new information, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the HN community would agree, which explains why the submission got flagged. Daniel >rollingdeep: Again, I find that very difficult to believe Daniel. If you feel so strongly that your are correct, please explain this time how this news not significant new information. You can’t just declare that and not present evidence of your declaration. I just summed up what was significant in what was said by Zuckerberg beyond any “back and forth” and you completely ignored that and hand waved it away without directly addressing any of the significance of that content. You also appear to be appealing to whatever users would like to flag this news beyond it not being newsworthy. Just because there are users that dislike any negative news about FB whether it is newsworthy or not, does not prove a topic was appropriately flagged for being too political. I’m afraid your logic does not add up. Please do a solid and present a comment from the discussion that you believe accurately articulates how this news is not at all significant, how there is not enough HN appropriate content (again, Microsoft would have been no different), and does not misquote or hand wave away the opposing points presented. I’m confident you can’t present any such comment because they don’t exist—because they fail to meet a stringent set of stipulations and actual scrutiny. To be honest I feel your decisions here are not meeting any stringent standards of enforcing HN policy. This enforcement feels rather arbitrary.
      - rollingdeep 7y ago
        update >dang: I'm sorry it feels arbitrary. I think we're looking at this from different perspectives and continuing to argue about it will likely only be repetitive. One thing's for sure: if antitrust action against Facebook or other big tech cos does go ahead, it will get thoroughly and repeatedly discussed on HN. So our positions will converge in the long run. I just don't think "candidate says X" is substantive enough to meet the bar—keep in mind that front page space is the scarcest resource on HN, so every important story gets insufficient attention, and whatever story you care most about, it's always going to feel like it's starved for coverage. (I'm sure even Rust hackers feel the same way.) I appreciate your passion on the topic and the fact that you care enough about HN to take time to make a case about it. Daniel >rollingdeep: The only way this has been repetitive is that I have repeated my simple request for you to directly address the specific concerns instead of a general dismissal on your part. If you cared to directly engage the content, this would not be repetitive. Alas, I don’t believe you care about such news even if it is legitimately significant which you have failed demonstrate otherwise. Per my reasonable requests, you haven’t even attempted to directly engage the content and substance, but you have generally dismissed it. I’m afraid because you have no interest in the significance of this kind of news, that the spread of such information is hampered. Do you realize that you are effectively influencing the spread of information, and this news is highly relevant to that and you? Just as Facebook has the power to influence the spread of information, so does HN. I see no reason to hamper/suppress this discussion as you are allowing, except perhaps the suppression of this information/discussion is preferable to you and Y Combinator. On some level there is no guarantee of actual regulatory action without public education and public support of those issues and regulatory actions. Your decisions seem to support obstructing the spread of that information and letting the facts bubble to the surface of public consciousness. Thus I completely disagree with your decisions on a factual basis.
patd 7y ago
I don't think there anything in there that is unexpected. The most interesting part is probably how Facebook will compete with TikTok in the coming months and years.
- mattzzz 7y ago
  fb can easily take down TikTok with the help of politicians as part of the US-China trade war drama.
disillusioned 7y ago
>>>There's no bombshell revelation in this leak Oh boy is that an understatement. Of course Zuck's strategy if the government attempts to break up Facebook for antitrust or whatever else they can spin together is to fight it legally. Of course his preference is going to be for a presidential candidate who hasn't made an overt commitment to force that break up. There's really no there, there.
- rollingdeep 7y ago
  When you are FB or Google or Amazon or you know... Microsoft... there are issues with how the government could ever effectively regulate such an industry with outsized funds (much larger than the fixed regulatory budgets) and power (influencing people and elections). The legal process was never designed to work effectively or efficiently at such a level. The legal process becomes such a war of attrition that you can weather any investigation as Microsoft did.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Microsoft was forced to pay a large fine and significantly change their business practices. The goal was never to destroy Microsoft, and even if the government could have somehow done so that wouldn't have benefited consumers.
    - rollingdeep 7y ago
      The outcome was a settlement as a slap on the wrist for a company that size and that arrogant (did you watch Gates’ testimony?). Really no significant business practices were forced to change either.
    - TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
      Feh. It was a proverbial slap on the wrist. But you're absolutely right: it wasn't about destruction. At the start of the trial, Microsoft "only" gave about $10K to political campaigns. By the end, they were giving $1M to BOTH parties each year. This was the real problem. The government extorted them for political cover. And it's not like they were picking on them; they just forced them to start paying into the system in proportion to their success, like everyone else is expected to at that level.
the_duke 7y ago
Seems like it doesn't contain anything surprising or terribly noteworthy. Also, while FB, Instagram and Whats App being under the same umbrella is very questionable (and the Whats App acquisition should have been blocked by regulators), I'd argue breaking up Google or Amazon would be more important.
chillacy 7y ago
The full transcript is on the verge 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-...
- nindalf 7y ago
  That was submitted yesterday, but failed to gain traction. It appears that the clickbait headline used by BBC got more attention from HN.
  - modeless 7y ago
    I'm sad about this. It appears to me that the original was buried, despite being interesting and extremely relevant for HN, because it doesn't fit the popular narrative of Zuckerberg being an uncaring evil robot. This BBC article appears to fit that narrative better, labeling him "combative" and "paranoid" despite his comments being perfectly reasonable IMO.
subroutine 7y ago
Is there any concern about the implications of breaking up big tech in an attempt to make US markets more competitive, but in so doing allow a foreign competitor to swoop in and become the de facto choice in some market? I imagine the US benefits substantially from the likes of Google and fb dominating competitors in foreign markets.
- apatters 7y ago
  This concern does get expressed from time to time, but I think it is sacrificing the long-term for the short-term. Sure, you can prop up bad businesses through government intervention in the short term, and we do it all the time. But in the long term, they're still bad businesses, and you end up with entire industries that are dysfunctional. Eventually, someone else eats your lunch. In fact you can argue that's happening now, as the article hints: Zuck was able to assimilate Whatsapp and IG into his bloated empire, but he can't buy TikTok and its 500M users because it's from China. Maybe if FB has been forced to actually compete with its biggest American competitors instead of getting the greenlight from regulators to just buy them, it would be in a better position now.
  - cjhopman 7y ago
    Rarely are anti-trust measures needed to break up bad businesses. It's the good (well, good in the sense of effective, profitable, etc) businesses that tend to be the focus of those.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > Rarely are anti-trust measures needed to break up bad businesses. It's the good (well, good in the sense of effective, profitable, etc) businesses that tend to be the focus of those. The same business can look good or bad depending on your perspective. Mylan is a great business from its shareholders perspective and a bad business from everyone else's, because it gouges consumers by charging $600 for some that costs ~$15.
      - 7y ago
Katzenjammer 7y ago
> Mark Zuckerberg has said he would "go to the mat" to fight against Facebook's break-up, in leaked audio published by tech news site The Verge. US presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has said she would consider splitting up it and other tech giants. What these little weasels talk about in private about the American people attempting to retain control over their own lives.
sschueller 7y ago
Can we hear the audio or was this recorded in a two party consent state?
- sifex 7y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20756701/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-leak-audio-ftc-antitrust-elizabeth-warren-tiktok-comments https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20756701/mark-zuckerberg-...
sekasi 7y ago
I have to say, as someone who's been somewhat critical of Facebook's dealings for the past years, I read the entire thing and I can't pick up on anything that doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to say to your team. Is anyone able to educate me on why there seem to be some air of hawks swooping on Zuckerberg because of this?
- nindalf 7y ago
  Because taking a single line out of context is great clickbait. The entire transcript on the verge was posted on HN yesterday and died with 10 upvotes and no comments. This story is much less interesting with context.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Yes. Reportedly he said: > "I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government... But look, at the end of the day, if someone's going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight," he said in the recording. > "It doesn't make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can't co-ordinate and work together," he added. Microsoft fought releasing data subpoenaed from its Irish data center. Apple fought backdooring iOS for the FBI. AT&T fought against being broken up in the 70s. So why is it surprising that Facebook would fight against it? And his second statement is in no way a threat.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Do you have a link?
- jansan 7y ago
  There isn't anything. Zuckerberg is only saying what you would expect from a sane business leader. This is pure political journalism.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    > There isn't anything. Zuckerberg is only saying what you would expect from a sane business leader. Given the recent negative news about Facebook I can see how such is news. > This is pure political journalism. Everything is political.
siscia 7y ago
> "It just doesn't really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up and, frankly, doesn't have jurisdiction to demand that." While this is technically true, I am not quite sure that it is the way to manage this kind of relationship. As European I am pretty pissed off just by this affirmation.
- 2rsf 7y ago
  > doesn't have jurisdiction to demand that." I think the EU showed how powerful it is, not it might not have jurisdiction over Facebook's headquarters but they certainly do have over their local businesses
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Why? He went to Europe. Obviously he's not going to Leichtenstein and Azerbaijan.
  - siscia 7y ago
    Did he go to England? > Azerbaijan This is a very wide definition of Europe...
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      England is in Europe yet. I put that other thing in there to point out that he's not going to go to some random country not claiming (or non-claiming) that Azerbaijan is in Europe.
    - cjhopman 7y ago
      > > Azerbaijan > This is a very wide definition of Europe... wtf? what definition of Europe doesn't include Azerbaijan? > As European I am pretty pissed off just by this affirmation. According to wikipedia, there are 50 countries in Europe. So are you truly pissed off that he would say that it doesn't make sense for him to go to Malta or Azerbaijan just because they want to parade him before some cameras? And that the company would be happy to send a representative that is senior/authorized to represent them in such legal proceedings. Or maybe you just mean, well, you don't count those smaller countries. Just the big ones. In which case, the UK would be behind 4 other european countries by population. And if that's what you feel matters, maybe he should first go to the 7 chinese provinces with greater population and the 7 indian provinces. And all that would just be if we accept the UK as the very minimum of what he would have to go to if requested. Really the whole idea is nonsense. The idea that the CEO of some company needs to be at the beck and call of every elected official in some podunk country is crazy.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
As Chief Executive, it's his responsibility to prevent the dismantling of the company. Why would anyone expect him to roll over and accept it? It wouldn't be want shareholders would want.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
That's actually the first time where Zuck officially acknowledges breaking up Fb and Google is a possibility, placing this onto the agenda for future (or even current) US administration and campaigns apart from Elizabeth Warrens plans. Fb should never have been allowed to buy WhatsApp, nor should've Google's DoubleClick and YouTube acquisition been allowed.
mxscho 7y ago
> He repeatedly refused to attend meetings with politicians in the UK, sending other Facebook representatives in his place. "I did hearings in the US. I did hearings in the EU," he said. "It just doesn't really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up [...]" Not sure how Brexit supporters feel about that.
- random42 7y ago
  > Not sure how Brexit supporters feel about that. Zuckerberg does not care.
- jansan 7y ago
  They should simply ask once Brexit has happened. It really does not make any sense before that.
trhway 7y ago
i'm not sure what a breakup can accomplish beside populist political goals. I meant to avoid losing the great societal benefits of the large networks the resulting post-breakup components/parts would have to be interoperational. Then why not enforce interoperability upon the too big players right now? Why not enforce that any client can be used for Twitter, that any player can federate/aggregate Twitter, and that any user can firehose its own data and the data of any users who gave permission? Why not enforce Facebook to allow firehose the data in similar manner and to accept posts/updates/etc. from other social networks, like posting Snaps into IG feed? Or Lyft (or some small unknown operator) ride requests routed through Uber. Any "platform" should come with API gateway with legally enforced generous performance guarantees and providing read/write access to all the user data and user visible services of the "platform". That would increase competition, give small and innovative players a chance, decrease the "winner takes all" with associated excesses and distortions and provide even greater societal benefit of making those networks even larger without the networks controlled by any one "platform". Instead of costly and obsolete breakup approach, the enforcing of interoperability and data access must become the battle cry of progressives. That would be the infrastructure of the 21st century which would even allow to efficiently approach even the super-issues like healthcare.
- hos234 7y ago
  It will naturally break apart just as news media broke apart along liberal and conservative, national and regional lines. There have been and continue to be attempts to consolidate news into as few orgs as possible. But beyond a 'tipping point' consolidation fails even though it's technically and economically more efficient. Because it's socially inefficient. (Same is true of religions and nations btw as population grows differences grow too and then things break). Even in democracies you can constantly see this breakage going as districts and counties across the world keep having their boundaries redrawn. Many newspapers have died out because the more inter networked we get it's more efficient to consolidate. Info flows around gatekeepers as the network gets more and more connected. Yet notice how we have so many news sources divided along social differences. They resist merging with each other. Those same forces resist consolidation of 6 billion people onto a single network. This has already happened with China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, North Korea etc where the differences are stark. Many countries are already demanding local data centers. As soon as that happens it's guaranteed some political entity will misuse the data to hold onto power and further pressure builds. Give it time and few more elections where one side has to loose (we will see many more Obama/Trump/Brexit type event where one group goes viral and beats another) and the pressure on the consolidated network will keep growing from the disappointed parties. This is still early days in the history of a social network. Niall Ferguson's book The Square and the Tower is full of examples from history of how networks of people grown, merge and break apart. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this stuff.

67 points by sjcsjc 7y ago

BBC coverage on this is a bit minimal and lazy. Posted already here with more coverage on Zuckerberg's comments about suing the government and election interference. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244

rr-geil-j 7y ago
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 It's already deleted.
- dang 7y ago
  It was flagged by users—correctly so, because this seems like just back-and-forth political ephemera, of the sort that the HN guidelines explain is off topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The test on HN for whether a new development in an ongoing story counts as on topic is whether the new article adds significant new information: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22significant%20new%20information%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... When that happens, it will surely be fully discussed on HN.
  - rollingdeep 7y ago
    Dang, that is not a stringent test any of kind. It is highly arbitrary. It is a list of your previous decisions on whether a post is new information—most of which are simply declarations of your decision and provide no stringent rules to test. It also doesn’t explain why the previous topic was locked and deleted. This new information had just been broken and not posted here before with the specific story coverage on Zuckerberg’s election interference comments. All that had been posted before was the raw audio leak/transcripts but not real journalism coverage of the significance like techcrunch. Theverge literally had one sentence of journalistic coverage on this: “In language that is often more candid than he typically uses in his public comments, Zuckerberg seeks to rally the company against Facebook’s competitors, critics, and the US government.” And because it’s in every readers interest to be informed why certain actions are taken, I have no option but to show the community the rest of the conversation here which I don’t see you giving any attention to in your post (which is concerning). https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162442/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133765 https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162442/https://news.ycom... https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162822/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://web.archive.org/web/20191002162822/https://news.ycom... >rollingdeep: Article is opinionated as many on HN but represents an important current news story to discuss. By all means the source can be substituted for a less opinionated one if an alternative source of similar coverage exists (I did not find any at the time). I have not found a negative comment that does not misquote the article, nor is anyone able to reply with correct info or bring more substance in response such as the disturbing history of antitrust lawsuits funded by Microsoft that surpass even the funding by the government. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21133244 >dang: This seems to me to be political back-and-forth of the moment and therefore off topic by the site guidelines. Sorry; I understand that interpretations of these things can differ. Daniel (moderator) >rollingdeep: So you are saying you would not have allowed the coverage of the Microsoft antitrust suits at the time on HN (if HN existed in the 1990’s and early 2000’s)? If find that difficult to believe. >dang: I'm not saying that. What antitrust suit is happening right now? I was under the impression that there isn't one yet; just political sniping between advocates for either side of one which may or may not happen. Daniel >rollingdeep: Google and Facebook are currently being investigated by by 50 attorney generals (of 50 U.S. states) in an antitrust probe. That is more than political sniping. These new comments by Zuckerberg are a direct result of this regulatory action that is already in motion, which would obviously come under even closer scrutiny under a Warren presidency (she is the current leading candidate in the U.S. polls). The story here is: 1: Zuckerberg openly talks about funding a major legal battle that would very likely outsize any normal regulatory budgets (that are more or less fixed in size) to enforce U.S. antitrust regulations—similar to how Microsoft was able to escape regulatory interventions by funding a legal war of attrition against the U.S. government, even though the anticompetitive behavior was well known and evident. 2: Zuckerberg talks about not being able to control election influences in the face of a breakup. This is rather odd considering that he testified that nefarious election influence via facebook was not a serious threat. It implies there is power to influence elections and there are implications suggesting FB may use this power for their own purposes or as a bargaining chip in regulatory actions. Again, this is more than political sniping. >dang: When said antitrust probe generates significant new information, that will be on topic on HN and get lots of discussion. Articles about what candidates say during election campaigns, not so much. If we're to treat all those as on topic, there won't be room for anything else. Warren said some stuff; Zuckerberg said some stuff; Warren said some more stuff. Politicians and CEOs say lots of things. I don't think that meets the bar for significant new information, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the HN community would agree, which explains why the submission got flagged. Daniel >rollingdeep: Again, I find that very difficult to believe Daniel. If you feel so strongly that your are correct, please explain this time how this news not significant new information. You can’t just declare that and not present evidence of your declaration. I just summed up what was significant in what was said by Zuckerberg beyond any “back and forth” and you completely ignored that and hand waved it away without directly addressing any of the significance of that content. You also appear to be appealing to whatever users would like to flag this news beyond it not being newsworthy. Just because there are users that dislike any negative news about FB whether it is newsworthy or not, does not prove a topic was appropriately flagged for being too political. I’m afraid your logic does not add up. Please do a solid and present a comment from the discussion that you believe accurately articulates how this news is not at all significant, how there is not enough HN appropriate content (again, Microsoft would have been no different), and does not misquote or hand wave away the opposing points presented. I’m confident you can’t present any such comment because they don’t exist—because they fail to meet a stringent set of stipulations and actual scrutiny. To be honest I feel your decisions here are not meeting any stringent standards of enforcing HN policy. This enforcement feels rather arbitrary.
    - rollingdeep 7y ago
      update >dang: I'm sorry it feels arbitrary. I think we're looking at this from different perspectives and continuing to argue about it will likely only be repetitive. One thing's for sure: if antitrust action against Facebook or other big tech cos does go ahead, it will get thoroughly and repeatedly discussed on HN. So our positions will converge in the long run. I just don't think "candidate says X" is substantive enough to meet the bar—keep in mind that front page space is the scarcest resource on HN, so every important story gets insufficient attention, and whatever story you care most about, it's always going to feel like it's starved for coverage. (I'm sure even Rust hackers feel the same way.) I appreciate your passion on the topic and the fact that you care enough about HN to take time to make a case about it. Daniel >rollingdeep: The only way this has been repetitive is that I have repeated my simple request for you to directly address the specific concerns instead of a general dismissal on your part. If you cared to directly engage the content, this would not be repetitive. Alas, I don’t believe you care about such news even if it is legitimately significant which you have failed demonstrate otherwise. Per my reasonable requests, you haven’t even attempted to directly engage the content and substance, but you have generally dismissed it. I’m afraid because you have no interest in the significance of this kind of news, that the spread of such information is hampered. Do you realize that you are effectively influencing the spread of information, and this news is highly relevant to that and you? Just as Facebook has the power to influence the spread of information, so does HN. I see no reason to hamper/suppress this discussion as you are allowing, except perhaps the suppression of this information/discussion is preferable to you and Y Combinator. On some level there is no guarantee of actual regulatory action without public education and public support of those issues and regulatory actions. Your decisions seem to support obstructing the spread of that information and letting the facts bubble to the surface of public consciousness. Thus I completely disagree with your decisions on a factual basis.

patd 7y ago

I don't think there anything in there that is unexpected. The most interesting part is probably how Facebook will compete with TikTok in the coming months and years.

mattzzz 7y ago
fb can easily take down TikTok with the help of politicians as part of the US-China trade war drama.

disillusioned 7y ago

>>>There's no bombshell revelation in this leak Oh boy is that an understatement. Of course Zuck's strategy if the government attempts to break up Facebook for antitrust or whatever else they can spin together is to fight it legally. Of course his preference is going to be for a presidential candidate who hasn't made an overt commitment to force that break up. There's really no there, there.

rollingdeep 7y ago
When you are FB or Google or Amazon or you know... Microsoft... there are issues with how the government could ever effectively regulate such an industry with outsized funds (much larger than the fixed regulatory budgets) and power (influencing people and elections). The legal process was never designed to work effectively or efficiently at such a level. The legal process becomes such a war of attrition that you can weather any investigation as Microsoft did.
- nradov 7y ago
  Microsoft was forced to pay a large fine and significantly change their business practices. The goal was never to destroy Microsoft, and even if the government could have somehow done so that wouldn't have benefited consumers.
  - rollingdeep 7y ago
    The outcome was a settlement as a slap on the wrist for a company that size and that arrogant (did you watch Gates’ testimony?). Really no significant business practices were forced to change either.
  - TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
    Feh. It was a proverbial slap on the wrist. But you're absolutely right: it wasn't about destruction. At the start of the trial, Microsoft "only" gave about $10K to political campaigns. By the end, they were giving $1M to BOTH parties each year. This was the real problem. The government extorted them for political cover. And it's not like they were picking on them; they just forced them to start paying into the system in proportion to their success, like everyone else is expected to at that level.

the_duke 7y ago

Seems like it doesn't contain anything surprising or terribly noteworthy. Also, while FB, Instagram and Whats App being under the same umbrella is very questionable (and the Whats App acquisition should have been blocked by regulators), I'd argue breaking up Google or Amazon would be more important.

chillacy 7y ago

The full transcript is on the verge 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-...

nindalf 7y ago
That was submitted yesterday, but failed to gain traction. It appears that the clickbait headline used by BBC got more attention from HN.
- modeless 7y ago
  I'm sad about this. It appears to me that the original was buried, despite being interesting and extremely relevant for HN, because it doesn't fit the popular narrative of Zuckerberg being an uncaring evil robot. This BBC article appears to fit that narrative better, labeling him "combative" and "paranoid" despite his comments being perfectly reasonable IMO.

subroutine 7y ago

Is there any concern about the implications of breaking up big tech in an attempt to make US markets more competitive, but in so doing allow a foreign competitor to swoop in and become the de facto choice in some market? I imagine the US benefits substantially from the likes of Google and fb dominating competitors in foreign markets.

apatters 7y ago
This concern does get expressed from time to time, but I think it is sacrificing the long-term for the short-term. Sure, you can prop up bad businesses through government intervention in the short term, and we do it all the time. But in the long term, they're still bad businesses, and you end up with entire industries that are dysfunctional. Eventually, someone else eats your lunch. In fact you can argue that's happening now, as the article hints: Zuck was able to assimilate Whatsapp and IG into his bloated empire, but he can't buy TikTok and its 500M users because it's from China. Maybe if FB has been forced to actually compete with its biggest American competitors instead of getting the greenlight from regulators to just buy them, it would be in a better position now.
- cjhopman 7y ago
  Rarely are anti-trust measures needed to break up bad businesses. It's the good (well, good in the sense of effective, profitable, etc) businesses that tend to be the focus of those.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Rarely are anti-trust measures needed to break up bad businesses. It's the good (well, good in the sense of effective, profitable, etc) businesses that tend to be the focus of those. The same business can look good or bad depending on your perspective. Mylan is a great business from its shareholders perspective and a bad business from everyone else's, because it gouges consumers by charging $600 for some that costs ~$15.
    - 7y ago

Katzenjammer 7y ago

> Mark Zuckerberg has said he would "go to the mat" to fight against Facebook's break-up, in leaked audio published by tech news site The Verge. US presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has said she would consider splitting up it and other tech giants. What these little weasels talk about in private about the American people attempting to retain control over their own lives.

sschueller 7y ago

Can we hear the audio or was this recorded in a two party consent state?

sifex 7y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20756701/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-leak-audio-ftc-antitrust-elizabeth-warren-tiktok-comments https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20756701/mark-zuckerberg-...

sekasi 7y ago

I have to say, as someone who's been somewhat critical of Facebook's dealings for the past years, I read the entire thing and I can't pick up on anything that doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to say to your team. Is anyone able to educate me on why there seem to be some air of hawks swooping on Zuckerberg because of this?

nindalf 7y ago
Because taking a single line out of context is great clickbait. The entire transcript on the verge was posted on HN yesterday and died with 10 upvotes and no comments. This story is much less interesting with context.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Yes. Reportedly he said: > "I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government... But look, at the end of the day, if someone's going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight," he said in the recording. > "It doesn't make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can't co-ordinate and work together," he added. Microsoft fought releasing data subpoenaed from its Irish data center. Apple fought backdooring iOS for the FBI. AT&T fought against being broken up in the 70s. So why is it surprising that Facebook would fight against it? And his second statement is in no way a threat.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Do you have a link?
jansan 7y ago
There isn't anything. Zuckerberg is only saying what you would expect from a sane business leader. This is pure political journalism.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > There isn't anything. Zuckerberg is only saying what you would expect from a sane business leader. Given the recent negative news about Facebook I can see how such is news. > This is pure political journalism. Everything is political.

siscia 7y ago

> "It just doesn't really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up and, frankly, doesn't have jurisdiction to demand that." While this is technically true, I am not quite sure that it is the way to manage this kind of relationship. As European I am pretty pissed off just by this affirmation.

2rsf 7y ago
> doesn't have jurisdiction to demand that." I think the EU showed how powerful it is, not it might not have jurisdiction over Facebook's headquarters but they certainly do have over their local businesses
scarejunba 7y ago
Why? He went to Europe. Obviously he's not going to Leichtenstein and Azerbaijan.
- siscia 7y ago
  Did he go to England? > Azerbaijan This is a very wide definition of Europe...
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    England is in Europe yet. I put that other thing in there to point out that he's not going to go to some random country not claiming (or non-claiming) that Azerbaijan is in Europe.
  - cjhopman 7y ago
    > > Azerbaijan > This is a very wide definition of Europe... wtf? what definition of Europe doesn't include Azerbaijan? > As European I am pretty pissed off just by this affirmation. According to wikipedia, there are 50 countries in Europe. So are you truly pissed off that he would say that it doesn't make sense for him to go to Malta or Azerbaijan just because they want to parade him before some cameras? And that the company would be happy to send a representative that is senior/authorized to represent them in such legal proceedings. Or maybe you just mean, well, you don't count those smaller countries. Just the big ones. In which case, the UK would be behind 4 other european countries by population. And if that's what you feel matters, maybe he should first go to the 7 chinese provinces with greater population and the 7 indian provinces. And all that would just be if we accept the UK as the very minimum of what he would have to go to if requested. Really the whole idea is nonsense. The idea that the CEO of some company needs to be at the beck and call of every elected official in some podunk country is crazy.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

As Chief Executive, it's his responsibility to prevent the dismantling of the company. Why would anyone expect him to roll over and accept it? It wouldn't be want shareholders would want.

tannhaeuser 7y ago

That's actually the first time where Zuck officially acknowledges breaking up Fb and Google is a possibility, placing this onto the agenda for future (or even current) US administration and campaigns apart from Elizabeth Warrens plans. Fb should never have been allowed to buy WhatsApp, nor should've Google's DoubleClick and YouTube acquisition been allowed.

mxscho 7y ago

> He repeatedly refused to attend meetings with politicians in the UK, sending other Facebook representatives in his place. "I did hearings in the US. I did hearings in the EU," he said. "It just doesn't really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up [...]" Not sure how Brexit supporters feel about that.

random42 7y ago
> Not sure how Brexit supporters feel about that. Zuckerberg does not care.
jansan 7y ago
They should simply ask once Brexit has happened. It really does not make any sense before that.

trhway 7y ago

i'm not sure what a breakup can accomplish beside populist political goals. I meant to avoid losing the great societal benefits of the large networks the resulting post-breakup components/parts would have to be interoperational. Then why not enforce interoperability upon the too big players right now? Why not enforce that any client can be used for Twitter, that any player can federate/aggregate Twitter, and that any user can firehose its own data and the data of any users who gave permission? Why not enforce Facebook to allow firehose the data in similar manner and to accept posts/updates/etc. from other social networks, like posting Snaps into IG feed? Or Lyft (or some small unknown operator) ride requests routed through Uber. Any "platform" should come with API gateway with legally enforced generous performance guarantees and providing read/write access to all the user data and user visible services of the "platform". That would increase competition, give small and innovative players a chance, decrease the "winner takes all" with associated excesses and distortions and provide even greater societal benefit of making those networks even larger without the networks controlled by any one "platform". Instead of costly and obsolete breakup approach, the enforcing of interoperability and data access must become the battle cry of progressives. That would be the infrastructure of the 21st century which would even allow to efficiently approach even the super-issues like healthcare.

hos234 7y ago
It will naturally break apart just as news media broke apart along liberal and conservative, national and regional lines. There have been and continue to be attempts to consolidate news into as few orgs as possible. But beyond a 'tipping point' consolidation fails even though it's technically and economically more efficient. Because it's socially inefficient. (Same is true of religions and nations btw as population grows differences grow too and then things break). Even in democracies you can constantly see this breakage going as districts and counties across the world keep having their boundaries redrawn. Many newspapers have died out because the more inter networked we get it's more efficient to consolidate. Info flows around gatekeepers as the network gets more and more connected. Yet notice how we have so many news sources divided along social differences. They resist merging with each other. Those same forces resist consolidation of 6 billion people onto a single network. This has already happened with China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, North Korea etc where the differences are stark. Many countries are already demanding local data centers. As soon as that happens it's guaranteed some political entity will misuse the data to hold onto power and further pressure builds. Give it time and few more elections where one side has to loose (we will see many more Obama/Trump/Brexit type event where one group goes viral and beats another) and the pressure on the consolidated network will keep growing from the disappointed parties. This is still early days in the history of a social network. Niall Ferguson's book The Square and the Tower is full of examples from history of how networks of people grown, merge and break apart. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this stuff.