Slashdot Mirror
Regulate Facebook Like AIM (vice.com)
New submitter gooddogsgotoheaven shares a report from Motherboard arguing why the U.S. government should regulate Facebook like AIM: Sixteen years ago, the FCC approved a merger between American Online and Time Warner, but with several conditions. As part of the deal, AOL was required to make its web portal compatible with other chat apps. The government stopped AOL from building a closed system where everyone had to use AIM, meaning it had to adopt interoperability -- the ability to be compatible with other computer systems. The FCC required AOL to be compatible with at least one instant messaging rival immediately after the merger went through. Within six months, the FCC required AOL to make its portal compatible with at least two other rivals, or face penalties. The FCC's decision changed how we communicate with each other on the internet. By forcing AIM to make room for competition, a range of messaging apps and services, as well as social networks emerged. Instead of being limited to AIM, people who used AOL's portal could choose other platforms.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
Reagan was the bottom of the barrel. Bush I was more of the same. Clinton was the bottom of a different barrel. Bush II tripped over the barrel. Obama poked his head out of the barrel. Trump has drilled through the bottom of the barrel and shows no signs of stopping.
As the summary indicates, this requirement on AOL was part of a deal to allow a merger between Time-Warner and AOL. As far as I know, Facebook isn't looking to merge with anybody, so what would be the basis for dictating how they run their business?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Get off facebook? Sure, a lot of people would love to stop feeding the monopoly. When entire social groups are locked into Facebook, it's a burden to get off. One person leaving won't convince others to leave; especially when each person has hundreds of friends and contacts on the platform. We've really been basket weaved in there.
Speaking from experience; I left facebook 8 months ago, and now my friends are pissed at me because they have to contact me separately, instead of including me in the group chat. It's become a burden to everyone involved. There are definitely rewards for staying off the platform, but the pressure to re-activate my account or "maybe just download FB messenger" is absolutely there.
Facebook isn't a monopoly because of its technology. It's a monopoly because they've literally locked entire social networks into their platform. Myspace was around when social networking was still in its infancy, but its interface was awful to use. Wiping their few competitors out, now Facebook has a massive head start over all their potential competition, and they have so much money in the bank that they can use to buy out competing technologies. It's become something that should either be regulated more heavily, or taxed at a higher rate to compensate for their monopoly economic benefits.