5 ms·

I want this to be the start of a forced breakup of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. There’s zero benefit to consumers, and a lot of harm.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Be careful. You and I aren't consumers of Meta. We're part of the product. You're arguing that advertisers should get a better deal since they are the consumers in this case. Personally I don't like advertisers and seeing them get lower prices, more space etc does nothing for the average citizen imho...
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  Nobody except Meta and the advertisers looks at this situation like that. It's quite obvious what parent meant.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I'm just pointing out that breaking up Facebook means a better deal for advertisers not users. They are the ones facing a monopoly. I'm happy for you or op to decide who is the "consumer" etc.
  - ajb 5y ago
    The article linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29377943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29377943 suggests that the The Competition and Markets Authority also thinks that way.
- blowski 5y ago
  We are consumers of Facebook, but not customers. We consume the content they put in front of us, and pay for the service by also consuming adverts.
missedthecue 5y ago
I think there is consumer benefit to scale (particularly when it comes to social networks), and I don't see how Instagram and Facebook being separate entities improves or changes anything. They'll have the exact same owners, same employees, same management... the only difference will be that Zucc gets richer and the employee's W-2s will say Instagram Inc instead of Meta inc.
- blowski 5y ago
  I'm not really sure I follow? If Facebook and Instagram are two entirely different companies, how do people have the same managers?
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    - Adam Mosseri is the CEO of Instagram. Do you think if Instagram gets spunoff he is terminated or something? No, he just remains the CEO of Instagram. Same is true for all the lower level managers, such as - Nam Nguyen, who is the head of engineering at Instagram. He would remain head of engineering at the standalone Instagram. Maybe he'd get a cosmetic change to his job title like CTO or something. - Ashley Yuki is the head of product at Instagram. Same with her, she'll stay head of product. They aren't going to fire and replace her just because Instagram trades under $GRAM instead of $FB. Repeat this down the line for the rest of the people that run Instagram. Instagram will literally be the same product, with the same owners, same management, and same business model.
kungito 5y ago
I'd say a way better approach is what was on HN recently where the chat platforms will have to enable 3rd party integrations effectively breaking the walled gardens. It makes way more sense to collapse the walls than distance and split the gardens
- tester34 5y ago
  You mean Discord implementing XMPP?
  - gmueckl 5y ago
    Maybe, but the services might also be allowed to offer completely custom APIs. The proposal isn't quite clear on that. Also, at this stage it's just a draft that has a long way to go until it can come into effect and the chances that it gets altered into something completely different along the way are still pretty high. Don't get your hopes up yet.
  - galbar 5y ago
    And/Or Matrix
    - sneak 5y ago
      It should be a rule that you have to have implemented a protocol before you can start demanding that others do so.
      - galbar 5y ago
        No demanding here, just wishful thinking. I am aware that the Matrix protocol is way more complex than other chat protocols.
- isoprophlex 5y ago
  This would be a beautiful result, something that's 100% beneficial to a consumer Would be great not to have six chat apps open all the time.
zethraeus 5y ago
> I want this to be the start of a forced breakup of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. okay > There’s zero benefit to consumers, and a lot of harm. There's a ton of potential societal benefit in centralization and/or monopoly in theory. There's also a ton of potential downside. What in particular makes this fall in the latter bucket?
- dx034 5y ago
  Where's the advantage of instagram, whatsapp and Facebook belonging to one company? The only advantage on any side I can see is combining user data and behavior data to improve ad revenue. You could argue that features can make it easier across products, but each product would be big enough on their own to develop these features at little cost compared to their income. Apart from that there's no potential upside I can see for a user to have these products under one company. The same applies to Giphy. Right now, messenger companies don't own Gif companies and it's still very easy to use them together. I don't see the benefit here for a user to have them owned by the same company.
  - zethraeus 5y ago
    > Where's the advantage of instagram, whatsapp and Facebook belonging to one company? Common-ish arguments for monopolies, as applied to this situation: * potentially the interoperability you indicate * infrastructure investment leading to stability * similarly: best in class client side software * security / privacy guarantees (yes. I know, ironic, etc. but the fully distributed multi-company alternative is likely worse on these dimensions) * single point of accountability for the state and law enforcement. (yes. not likely a HN concern. Still valuable to the state and potentially regular consumers.) * general pro monopoly argument: fewer resources are wasted in competition, and so can be applied to product development and research. i.e. bell labs IDK how I feel the scales tip in this case, but treating it as cut and dry feels a bit naive.
    - gmueckl 5y ago
      So turn it all into a state run company instead? Your points sound as if that would be a potential solution. But that would have its own issues with somewhat twisted incentive structures.
tchalla 5y ago
I’m not sure why we should focus only on Facebook. Amazon, Google, Apple do it as well. Laws should go beyond Facebook.
- blowski 5y ago
  Nobody said we _should_ focus only on Facebook? This kind of whataboutism is an easy way to deflect from fixing any one company, but if you've got three broken companies and you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    > you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix. Now you've given the other two companies more of the market share. Not only that you've given them time to lobby and protect themselves. So you've now reduced competition even more. You are trying to fix the wrong problem. The problem is the market, not facebook.
    - Dudeman112 5y ago
      >Not only that you've given them time to lobby and protect themselves. [...] The problem is the market Maybe the problem is the political system that lets corporations make the government do whatever the heck they want.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      The problem is the lack of a coherent framework of rules that correctly apply existing constitutional principles to modern technology. The 4th amendment should have been sufficient to prevent the casual destruction of the concept of privacy, but it's become overwhelmingly apparent that we need an explicit framework protecting individual digital information rights. Make commercial surveillance illegal, or prevent mass harvesting of private data, and you've solved much of what's fundamentally wrong with big tech. Problems with Facebook, et al, are symptoms of bad legislation. By focusing energy on "fixing" the companies, we risk losing sight of the institutional failures that allowed them to become a problem.
timwaagh 5y ago
Benefits do exist namely you can have pictures from insta autoposted to FB as well.
- blowski 5y ago
  I can autopost from Twitter to WordPress, without them being owned by the same company.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    IIRC you used to be able to post to Twitter via Instagram before Facebook bought them.
jollybean 5y ago
It doesn't work like that. I'm doubtful if there is any material harm in those companies being under the same roof, and the benefit to consumers may just be that they are free services, but that doesn't have to be demonstrated. They are not essential services, it's better to just not use them if you don't like them. Where there needs to be more regulation is in Search Monopoly, Search Result Transparency, App Store Monopolies etc. - there are serious consumer and industry issues there.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Be careful. You and I aren't consumers of Meta. We're part of the product. You're arguing that advertisers should get a better deal since they are the consumers in this case. Personally I don't like advertisers and seeing them get lower prices, more space etc does nothing for the average citizen imho...

selfhoster11 5y ago
Nobody except Meta and the advertisers looks at this situation like that. It's quite obvious what parent meant.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I'm just pointing out that breaking up Facebook means a better deal for advertisers not users. They are the ones facing a monopoly. I'm happy for you or op to decide who is the "consumer" etc.
- ajb 5y ago
  The article linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29377943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29377943 suggests that the The Competition and Markets Authority also thinks that way.
blowski 5y ago
We are consumers of Facebook, but not customers. We consume the content they put in front of us, and pay for the service by also consuming adverts.

missedthecue 5y ago

I think there is consumer benefit to scale (particularly when it comes to social networks), and I don't see how Instagram and Facebook being separate entities improves or changes anything. They'll have the exact same owners, same employees, same management... the only difference will be that Zucc gets richer and the employee's W-2s will say Instagram Inc instead of Meta inc.

blowski 5y ago
I'm not really sure I follow? If Facebook and Instagram are two entirely different companies, how do people have the same managers?
- missedthecue 5y ago
  - Adam Mosseri is the CEO of Instagram. Do you think if Instagram gets spunoff he is terminated or something? No, he just remains the CEO of Instagram. Same is true for all the lower level managers, such as - Nam Nguyen, who is the head of engineering at Instagram. He would remain head of engineering at the standalone Instagram. Maybe he'd get a cosmetic change to his job title like CTO or something. - Ashley Yuki is the head of product at Instagram. Same with her, she'll stay head of product. They aren't going to fire and replace her just because Instagram trades under $GRAM instead of $FB. Repeat this down the line for the rest of the people that run Instagram. Instagram will literally be the same product, with the same owners, same management, and same business model.

kungito 5y ago

I'd say a way better approach is what was on HN recently where the chat platforms will have to enable 3rd party integrations effectively breaking the walled gardens. It makes way more sense to collapse the walls than distance and split the gardens

tester34 5y ago
You mean Discord implementing XMPP?
- gmueckl 5y ago
  Maybe, but the services might also be allowed to offer completely custom APIs. The proposal isn't quite clear on that. Also, at this stage it's just a draft that has a long way to go until it can come into effect and the chances that it gets altered into something completely different along the way are still pretty high. Don't get your hopes up yet.
- galbar 5y ago
  And/Or Matrix
  - sneak 5y ago
    It should be a rule that you have to have implemented a protocol before you can start demanding that others do so.
    - galbar 5y ago
      No demanding here, just wishful thinking. I am aware that the Matrix protocol is way more complex than other chat protocols.
isoprophlex 5y ago
This would be a beautiful result, something that's 100% beneficial to a consumer Would be great not to have six chat apps open all the time.

zethraeus 5y ago

> I want this to be the start of a forced breakup of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. okay > There’s zero benefit to consumers, and a lot of harm. There's a ton of potential societal benefit in centralization and/or monopoly in theory. There's also a ton of potential downside. What in particular makes this fall in the latter bucket?

dx034 5y ago
Where's the advantage of instagram, whatsapp and Facebook belonging to one company? The only advantage on any side I can see is combining user data and behavior data to improve ad revenue. You could argue that features can make it easier across products, but each product would be big enough on their own to develop these features at little cost compared to their income. Apart from that there's no potential upside I can see for a user to have these products under one company. The same applies to Giphy. Right now, messenger companies don't own Gif companies and it's still very easy to use them together. I don't see the benefit here for a user to have them owned by the same company.
- zethraeus 5y ago
  > Where's the advantage of instagram, whatsapp and Facebook belonging to one company? Common-ish arguments for monopolies, as applied to this situation: * potentially the interoperability you indicate * infrastructure investment leading to stability * similarly: best in class client side software * security / privacy guarantees (yes. I know, ironic, etc. but the fully distributed multi-company alternative is likely worse on these dimensions) * single point of accountability for the state and law enforcement. (yes. not likely a HN concern. Still valuable to the state and potentially regular consumers.) * general pro monopoly argument: fewer resources are wasted in competition, and so can be applied to product development and research. i.e. bell labs IDK how I feel the scales tip in this case, but treating it as cut and dry feels a bit naive.
  - gmueckl 5y ago
    So turn it all into a state run company instead? Your points sound as if that would be a potential solution. But that would have its own issues with somewhat twisted incentive structures.

tchalla 5y ago

I’m not sure why we should focus only on Facebook. Amazon, Google, Apple do it as well. Laws should go beyond Facebook.

blowski 5y ago
Nobody said we _should_ focus only on Facebook? This kind of whataboutism is an easy way to deflect from fixing any one company, but if you've got three broken companies and you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  > you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix. Now you've given the other two companies more of the market share. Not only that you've given them time to lobby and protect themselves. So you've now reduced competition even more. You are trying to fix the wrong problem. The problem is the market, not facebook.
  - Dudeman112 5y ago
    >Not only that you've given them time to lobby and protect themselves. [...] The problem is the market Maybe the problem is the political system that lets corporations make the government do whatever the heck they want.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    The problem is the lack of a coherent framework of rules that correctly apply existing constitutional principles to modern technology. The 4th amendment should have been sufficient to prevent the casual destruction of the concept of privacy, but it's become overwhelmingly apparent that we need an explicit framework protecting individual digital information rights. Make commercial surveillance illegal, or prevent mass harvesting of private data, and you've solved much of what's fundamentally wrong with big tech. Problems with Facebook, et al, are symptoms of bad legislation. By focusing energy on "fixing" the companies, we risk losing sight of the institutional failures that allowed them to become a problem.

timwaagh 5y ago

Benefits do exist namely you can have pictures from insta autoposted to FB as well.

blowski 5y ago
I can autopost from Twitter to WordPress, without them being owned by the same company.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  IIRC you used to be able to post to Twitter via Instagram before Facebook bought them.

jollybean 5y ago

It doesn't work like that. I'm doubtful if there is any material harm in those companies being under the same roof, and the benefit to consumers may just be that they are free services, but that doesn't have to be demonstrated. They are not essential services, it's better to just not use them if you don't like them. Where there needs to be more regulation is in Search Monopoly, Search Result Transparency, App Store Monopolies etc. - there are serious consumer and industry issues there.