3 ms·
It's strange that you're ignoring the massive area between "unregulated" and "nationalized" (which is where most companies fall already). No one is saying to b
by smt88 5y ago
It's strange that you're ignoring the massive area between "unregulated" and "nationalized" (which is where most companies fall already).
No one is saying to break up Facebook and give it to the government. The idea is to break up Facebook because they've been buying competitors instead of trying to compete. It is an attempt to make the market more competitive.
- kevingadd 5y agoIn the tweet's case also, if Whatsapp were split from Facebook, Facebook's BGP failures wouldn't have taken it down, so the decentralization has robustness benefits even if you ignore the market benefits.
- rybosworld 5y ago"The idea is to break up Facebook because they've been buying competitors instead of trying to compete." That seems like your own interpretation of the tweet. The author says in a later tweet that they think Whatsapp should be treated as a utility. That seems to suggest they do want Whatsapp to be handed to the government.
- chuckee 5y agoPlenty of utilities are privately owned - telephone companies and ISPs, for the most relevant example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
- rybosworld 5y agoPrivately owned does not imply privately run.
- chuckee 5y agoAre telecoms not privately run? Or are you defining anything that's regulated as "not privately run"?
- rybosworld 5y agoReally depends who you are grouping into telecoms. Comcast/AT&T etc are not utilities, nor are they classified as such.