The Verge: “Mark Zuckerberg on… the potential breakup of Facebook”

[bxr 920]

ALL HANDS ON DECK: In two hours of leaked audio, Mark Zuckerberg rallies Facebook employees against critics, competitors… (The Verge)

July should have been a relief for Facebook. The company accepted a $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission over privacy issues, after having essentially set the terms of the agreement itself. It settled a case with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleged that it had misled investors about the risks of user data being mishandled, for a relatively paltry $100 million. And Facebook reported stellar quarterly earnings on July 24th, beating investor expectations and sending its stock price up.

But inside the company, the mood remained anxious. Several 2020 presidential candidates, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), had called for Facebook to be broken up. Libra, a Facebook-created cryptocurrency, had run into strong resistance from regulators around the world who worried that it could destabilize the global financial system. Employees had questions about Zuckerberg himself — Why had the CEO declined multiple requests to appear at government hearings in Europe? — and worried about Facebook’s increasingly dim reputation among their peers

These questions were raised at two open meetings with employees in July. The Verge obtained two hours of audio from the meetings, which include extended question-and-answer sessions between Zuckerberg and his employees. 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 … [Full Story]

 

 

 

 

[Keanu Reeves 7,702]

I know who I'm voting for

 

[ThatBinch 1,923]

Vote Warren and save our bussies!

[KEVIN STEVE 6,091]

20 minutes ago, ThatBinch said:

Vote Warren and save our bussies!

 

1 hour ago, Keanu Reeves said:

I know who I'm voting for

 

why? 

[ThatBinch 1,923]

24 minutes ago, KEVIN STEVE said:

 

why? 

Cos I'm bored of reading about that fat f*ck, how about that for why.

[Economy 19,232]

Hardly use Facebook and havent kept up with the controversies either

 

can someone explain why people want to break up the company?

[kyanewest 6,565]

Who's this guy

[Florian 14,484]

26 minutes ago, kyanewest said:

Who's this guy

Just the founder et CEO of a small company called Facebook   Oh and he's also the 8th wealthiest person alive  

[bxr 920]

35 minutes ago, Economy said:

Hardly use Facebook and havent kept up with the controversies either

 

can someone explain why people want to break up the company?

I’m not super-versed in the discourse, but from what I’ve gathered, it seems to be a top-line combination of an effectual big tech oligarchy with echoes and undertones of tyranny, but fundamentally just unfettered abuse of power (and antitrust measures) at scale … but, that said, fwiw, two pieces that give more insight and specific anchor points:

 

(via Big Think)

The argument is windy and diffused, but it can be abbreviated to four main pillars:

First, Facebook dominates the social network market.

Spoiler

The company is worth half a trillion, and Hughes estimates it earns more than 80 percent of the world's social networking revenue. It buys up competitors that get too big or popular. Those it can't buy, it copies. It then uses its superior resources and user base to create high barriers for competitors.

Second, the company's lock on the market ensures users have no means of protest.

Spoiler

They can't move to another platform. "According to the Pew Research Center, a quarter deleted their accounts from their phones [after the Cambridge Analytica scandal], but many did so only temporarily," writes [Facebook co-founder, Chris] Hughes. "I heard more than one friend say, 'I'm getting off Facebook altogether — thank God for Instagram,' not realizing that Instagram was a Facebook subsidiary."

[Facebook co-founder, Chris] Hughes' third pillar is that Facebook isn't free.

Spoiler

Many would claim that antitrust laws don't apply to Facebook, because it doesn't charge a subscription fee. It earns revenue through advertisements, meaning it can't engage in monopolistic activities like price fixing. But Hughes counters that we pay for Facebook with our attention and data. Neither is cheap in our data-driven era, and we don't know how it is being spent by Facebook.
'The vibrant marketplace that once drove Facebook and other social media companies to complete to come up with better products has virtually disappeared,' writes Hughes. 'This means there's less chance of start-ups developing healthier, less exploitative social media platforms. It also means less accountability on issues like privacy.'

Hughes' final pillar is Zuckerberg's unilateral control, which gives him the ability to monitor, organize, and censor speech at an unprecedented level.

Spoiler

Facebook's algorithm decides what speech goes through, what speech is deleted, and what speech users see and how often. What bothers Hughes is not that his friend has abused this power, but that the power exists without oversight from government or independent authority. (Zuckerberg, it should be noted, agrees on this point.)

(Via The Guardian (Opinion piece))

Facebook and Google dominate advertising. They’re the first stops for many Americans seeking news. Apple dominates smartphones and laptop computers. Amazon is now the first stop for a third of all American consumers seeking to buy anything.

This consolidation at the heart of the American economy creates two big problems.

First, it stifles innovation. Contrary to the conventional view of a US economy bubbling with inventive small companies, the rate at which new job-creating businesses have formed in the United States has been halved since 2004, according to the census.

A major culprit: big tech’s sweeping patents, data, growing networks and dominant platforms have become formidable barriers to new entrants.

The second problem is political. These massive concentrations of economic power generate political clout that’s easily abused, as the New York Times investigation of Facebook reveals. How long will it be before Facebook uses its own data and platform against critics? Or before potential critics are silenced even by the possibility?

Not sure if it helps, but some context nonetheless

 

29 minutes ago, kyanewest said:

Who's this guy

Facebook CEO

[Economy 19,232]

13 minutes ago, bxr said:

I’m not super-versed in the discourse, but from what I’ve gathered, it seems to be a top-line combination of an effectual big tech oligarchy with echoes and undertones of tyranny, but fundamentally just unfettered abuse of power (and antitrust measures) at scale … but, that said, fwiw, two pieces that give more insight and specific anchor points:

 

(via Big Think)

The argument is windy and diffused, but it can be abbreviated to four main pillars:

First, Facebook dominates the social network market.

  Hide contents

The company is worth half a trillion, and Hughes estimates it earns more than 80 percent of the world's social networking revenue. It buys up competitors that get too big or popular. Those it can't buy, it copies. It then uses its superior resources and user base to create high barriers for competitors.

Second, the company's lock on the market ensures users have no means of protest.

  Hide contents

They can't move to another platform. "According to the Pew Research Center, a quarter deleted their accounts from their phones [after the Cambridge Analytica scandal], but many did so only temporarily," writes [Facebook co-founder, Chris] Hughes. "I heard more than one friend say, 'I'm getting off Facebook altogether — thank God for Instagram,' not realizing that Instagram was a Facebook subsidiary."

[Facebook co-founder, Chris] Hughes' third pillar is that Facebook isn't free.

  Hide contents

Many would claim that antitrust laws don't apply to Facebook, because it doesn't charge a subscription fee. It earns revenue through advertisements, meaning it can't engage in monopolistic activities like price fixing. But Hughes counters that we pay for Facebook with our attention and data. Neither is cheap in our data-driven era, and we don't know how it is being spent by Facebook.
'The vibrant marketplace that once drove Facebook and other social media companies to complete to come up with better products has virtually disappeared,' writes Hughes. 'This means there's less chance of start-ups developing healthier, less exploitative social media platforms. It also means less accountability on issues like privacy.'

Hughes' final pillar is Zuckerberg's unilateral control, which gives him the ability to monitor, organize, and censor speech at an unprecedented level.

  Hide contents

Facebook's algorithm decides what speech goes through, what speech is deleted, and what speech users see and how often. What bothers Hughes is not that his friend has abused this power, but that the power exists without oversight from government or independent authority. (Zuckerberg, it should be noted, agrees on this point.)

(Via The Guardian (Opinion piece))

Facebook and Google dominate advertising. They’re the first stops for many Americans seeking news. Apple dominates smartphones and laptop computers. Amazon is now the first stop for a third of all American consumers seeking to buy anything.

This consolidation at the heart of the American economy creates two big problems.

First, it stifles innovation. Contrary to the conventional view of a US economy bubbling with inventive small companies, the rate at which new job-creating businesses have formed in the United States has been halved since 2004, according to the census.

A major culprit: big tech’s sweeping patents, data, growing networks and dominant platforms have become formidable barriers to new entrants.

The second problem is political. These massive concentrations of economic power generate political clout that’s easily abused, as the New York Times investigation of Facebook reveals. How long will it be before Facebook uses its own data and platform against critics? Or before potential critics are silenced even by the possibility?

Not sure if it helps, but some context nonetheless

 

Facebook CEO

I dont have an issue with them collecting data. Thats how companies know what to advertize to you based on what u like and ur patterns and no one can force me to but anything its by choice

 

i agree tho that if 80% of social media is facebook owned (that seems like a high estimate to me) then thats a total monopoly and id say thats justification to break it up

 

i dont have an issue with a company being big but if it gets to the point of total dominance with no competition, that doesnt benefit anyone other than Facebook share holders

[kyanewest 6,565]

18 minutes ago, Florian said:

Just the founder et CEO of a small company called Facebook   Oh and he's also the 8th wealthiest person alive  

Ofc it was bad sarcasm 

[Fresco 470]

Facebook seems to buy anything that might compete with it. Same as Microsoft used to do. 

Facebook controls Instagram, which should be a separate company, imo.

There is a wiki page that lists 78 companies acquired by Facebook.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook

 

[bxr 920]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I dont have an issue with them collecting data. Thats how companies know what to advertize to you based on what u like and ur patterns and no one can force me to but anything its by choice

 

i agree tho that if 80% of social media is facebook owned (that seems like a high estimate to me) then thats a total monopoly and id say thats justification to break it up

 

i dont have an issue with a company being big but if it gets to the point of total dominance with no competition, that doesnt benefit anyone other than Facebook share holders

Just, a quick aside on advertising / advertisers / ad revenue; advertisers (especially within the social media sphere) aren’t limited to massive corporations or large companies (or established brands who just want to sell you stuff); from what i’ve gathered, “advertisers” when it comes to media buying, are just entities who pay for promotional placement on a platform. so, because the cost / barrier of entry on social media platforms is significantly lower than that of traditional media (tv, outdoor, radio, etc.), pretty much anyone who wants access to your attention (and, tbh, data, depending on the scenario) becomes an “advertiser” … which is where the lack of oversight and accountability regarding social media’s self-regulation, in light of prioritizing profits through exchange / sale of user data as the proprietary asset, seems to be an issue … when your data is up for sale to anyone who wants access to your account for “advertisement” -- basically, it’s not just companies who want to sell you stuff to buy that are “advertisers” paying to access your data, it’s anyone who can afford digital media space sold at pennies on the traditional media dollar … but that’s just a random one-off … and it’s generalized, but more just for consideration than like, ironclad empirical assertion

 

Oh, addt’l aside, 80% is FB’s share of social media ad revenue, FB doesn’t own 80% of social media properties (if you’re referencing the Big Think statistic?)

 

I think that’s the general consensus on your first question, the reach and ramifications of influence and market share, with no ostensible oversight, accountability, or apparent intent to balance the competitive field / marketplace / discourse / fundamental dissemination of information

 

but, that’s all kind of rambling, tbh

[Economy 19,232]

48 minutes ago, bxr said:

Just, a quick aside on advertising / advertisers / ad revenue; advertisers (especially within the social media sphere) aren’t limited to massive corporations or large companies (or established brands who just want to sell you stuff); from what i’ve gathered, “advertisers” when it comes to media buying, are just entities who pay for promotional placement on a platform. so, because the cost / barrier of entry on social media platforms is significantly lower than that of traditional media (tv, outdoor, radio, etc.), pretty much anyone who wants access to your attention (and, tbh, data, depending on the scenario) becomes an “advertiser” … which is where the lack of oversight and accountability regarding social media’s self-regulation, in light of prioritizing profits through exchange / sale of user data as the proprietary asset, seems to be an issue … when your data is up for sale to anyone who wants access to your account for “advertisement” -- basically, it’s not just companies who want to sell you stuff to buy that are “advertisers” paying to access your data, it’s anyone who can afford digital media space sold at pennies on the traditional media dollar … but that’s just a random one-off … and it’s generalized, but more just for consideration than like, ironclad empirical assertion

 

Oh, addt’l aside, 80% is FB’s share of social media ad revenue, FB doesn’t own 80% of social media properties (if you’re referencing the Big Think statistic?)

 

I think that’s the general consensus on your first question, the reach and ramifications of influence and market share, with no ostensible oversight, accountability, or apparent intent to balance the competitive field / marketplace / discourse / fundamental dissemination of information

 

but, that’s all kind of rambling, tbh

I guess i just dont care if they have my info. I dont leave sensitive crutial stuff online and as for my tastes and search patterns i dont care if they see. Im just a number to them like every other user they dont know me to judge me

 

but i can understand some ppl not liking it tho

[bxr 920]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I guess i just dont care if they have my info. I dont leave sensitive crutial stuff online and as for my tastes and search patterns i dont care if they see. Im just a number to them like every other user they dont know me to judge me

… truly an enigma amidst the marketplace matrix

and any algorithm that’s going to try and judge you without taking the time to get to know the real you beneath the numerical facade doesn’t deserve you(r data)  🙃