Slashdot Mirror
Advocacy Groups Call for the FTC To Break Up Facebook (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Several advocacy groups have banded together for a campaign that calls upon the US Federal Trade Commission to intervene and break up Facebook into smaller companies -- and more specifically to split off the Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp services from the mother company. The campaign, named Freedom from Facebook, was set into motion today by eight groups -- Demand Progress, Citizens Against Monopoly, Content Creators Coalition, Jewish Voice for Peace, MoveOn, Mpower Change, Open Markets Institute, and SumOfUs, respectively. Through a dedicated website, the eight advocacy groups are urging users to file a petition with the FTC on the grounds that Facebook has become a monopoly. The campaign's motto is "It's time to make Facebook safe for democracy." "Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have amassed a scary amount of power," the campaign's website reads. "Facebook unilaterally decides the news that billions of people around the world see every day."
Then they're definitely not going to break up Facebook, provided of course Facebook throws enough money to politicians and K Street.
Facebook may be quite evil, but it is by no means has a monopoly on social media. It may occupy a particular niche in the social media eco-system. But I am not sure that there can really be more than one in a given niche. For social media to work at all, the majority of people who are interested in social media have to be in the same place.
Put limits on data collection and retention, sure. But break them up? All that'll happen is that another player will fill the niche. And being aware of what had been done to FB, they'll manage to be more evil: they'll do the same thing, but hide it even better.
Check your premises.
Someone recently posted the Facebook earnings figures and it showed the #deletefacebook campaign barely put in a dent. No one except celebrities left the platform en-mass. Look at the list of backers in this particular campaign. It tells us something. I wrote about it here:
https://fightthefuture.org/article/facebook-politics-and-orwells-24-7-hate/
I suspect Zuckerberg plan for a presidential run pissed off some of the old rich. He young, he's a new kid, and the gods of old media wanted to put him in his place. All the focus has been on Facebook, when Google, Apple, Amazon, Adobe and even Microsoft collect just as much data and do the same types of analytics.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Facebook broken apart too; and same with Google. I doubt this campaign will go anywhere though. It's a rich man's pissing contest. We're seeing the top 500 companies fight over relevance, and if anything, Facebook won that last round if you go by influence numbers.
Is privacy the only issue at stake here? What about big companies controlling what you see and think? Twenty years ago it was TV and movies, now it's... everything. One big case of the heckler's veto is what we have now. In the future all views will Taco Bell.
has it really reached a point that we can call it a monopoly?
I admit - the tactics they used to get people to create accounts, from the early days that mostly consisted of not allowing people to view even "public" content without an account, were sort of underhanded, but they got people to create the accounts and those people kept coming back. There are plenty of other social networks out there, and plenty that compete with each of the ones above. They don't fit the proper definition of monopoly.
What keeps Facebook popular isn't the fact they're good, it's that other people are there - once they got a foothold they took off for the same reason Microsoft Office did - not because they're better than the competition, but because EVERYONE ELSE is using it.
I would argue Slashdot itself is a social network, from the early days of the Internet. I was/technically still am on LiveJournal, and despite the fact I don't use it anymore I think it's better than Facebook. I'm also on Minds, Steemit, and Google Plus. They aren't a monopoly.
I would love to see the company break apart, but the part of me that likes to do what's right doesn't want the government to do it. I want them to fall face down in a pile of crap and have everyone leave them of their own accord. Right now the pro-censorship charge being lead by Facebook, Google, and Twitter are driving some of the core participants from these platforms to the networks I've mentioned above and Gab.
As IPFS gains momentum and block-chain based social networks like Steemit as well as privatized nodes on the chains like https://akasha.world/ Facebook is going to fall apart simply because people will be moving onto platforms they know aren't being controlled by a core group of overlords. The only way to stop block-chain based networks is for governments to truly show their tyrannical faces and break down the nodes - that requires going past lines they've tip-toed up to but don't want to cross for obvious reasons.
Once the chain takes off Facebook will be all about your Grandma hitting "Love" on pictures of your kids and your aunt forwarding stupid meme's which are some sort of Internet astrology based on first names and likely hood to be good moms, dads, dancers, or sloppy whatever. In short, it will be nothing but old people who aren't going to learn to use something else.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
This doesn't make any sense. Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on anything.
I don't respond to AC's.
"Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have amassed a scary amount of power,"
Google has more power and more information and frankly more opportunities for abuse. Facebook just isn't clever enough to be subtle about it.
Anyway this is nothing more than a stupid publicity stunt that they have to know cannot possibly happen, especially with the current administration and congress. They didn't break up the banks which nobody even seriously argues with the fact that they are a systemic threat to our financial system. If they didn't do that then Facebook certainly isn't going to get that kind of scrutiny here in the US. Maybe Europe could do something but I doubt it.
... any time you like, but you can never leave.
Facebook is too big to fail.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If there's any budding monopoly that needs to be broken up, it's Amazon, not Facebook. But since they can't blame Amazon for losing them the election in 2016, Facebook is the preferred target.
The government happily approved the purchase / merger of these companies only 4 and 6 years ago. They wouldn't break them up, even if they did have a case to do so.
And no sorry, Facebook does not have a monopoly on chat or posting pictures online. They have considerable market power on social networks, but I'm thinking that the people who want Facebook split up don't use it in the first place and given it's a free product to consumers it's hard to make an antitrust case for it.
They are the worst monopoly right now...
None of this would be happening if Hillary won the election. These same people calling for Facebook's head on a platter would be cheering the use of social media as a major factor in electoral politics and heralding whomever they used as their social media coordinators. You would never hear the words "collusion" or "dossier" or "Stormy Daniels."
It's funny when people are hoist by their own petar.
What would a break up of Facebook even look like? It's not like breaking up a phone company where you just have different companies owning different sets of wires in different parts of the country.
What, are people thinking after the break up there'd be Facebook 1 and Facebook 2? Who gets put on which? What if your friends all end up on one and you end up on the other? Obviously that wouldn't work.
Maybe people think the different facets would be different companies? Like what, the main news feed is one company, but now the messenger app is a different company, and facebook games is managed by another? Then what legal requirement would there be for any of these broken up companies to work together? Either the main one in charge of people's profiles and feeds would have complete veto control over the others or you'd now have some kind of pseudo government owned entity.
This article has been corrected to more accurately reflect the facts:
From: "Facebook unilaterally decides the news that billions of people around the world see every day."
To: "People decide the news they see every day."
Asking Big Government to filter your Social Media feed is like asking a lion for a piece of meat. You're not getting the meat. You are the meat.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.
Mod the parent comment up. The U.S. financial system and healthcare need adequate repair and supervision also.
has it really reached a point that we can call it a monopoly?
Yes, but it is a monopoly unlike any other and breaking it up will fail. The whole point of Facebook is that everyone is on the same site and so can share information and details with each other (and of course Facebook itself). If you break that up one of the parts will become dominant, everyone will move to that because sharing requires it and all you have is Facebook 2.0.
Even if you pass laws to try and limit what a social media company can do that will likely fail as well because the company can simply relocate its servers outside whatever country is trying to regulate it. The best approach I've seen so far is extremely strict privacy laws such as those in the EU.
Now lets see all the advocates for capitalism argue against breaking up Facebook, while nothing could be better for capitalism.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Google is far and away a greater monopoly than Facebook. Here we are socializing on Slashdot and unless you used Facebook login - no facebook need be involved. Request Policy is blocking all requests to their domain and this page works fine.
By contrast Google is essentially unavoidable. Some 90% of web searches are Google. If you send an e-mail odds are pretty high if you are not using GMail the recipient is or they are on whatever google for Domains is call this week. Find a commercial web site that does not do at least one of Google Analytics, ReCaptcha, googleapis, etc. Keeping in mind the data harvesting potential for Google if you use ANY of the above.
And than there is Android - for all intents now there are TWO smart phone platforms Apple or Google and Android phones home a lot in most cases. Finally Chrome - basically malware phone home all the time...
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Translation: we are advocacy groups that want attention. we will make a ridiculous demand of something recognizable to get our names in the news and look relevant. Thus drawing more support, membership, and donations.
Unless Facebook conspires to kill off competition I don't think it is fair to attack Facebook. Obviously when a company creates a lot of wealth it can do more research, hire better and more experts and present a better product. That is exactly what a company is supposed to do. We see Wall Mart with buying power that is very difficult to compete against. Obviously in Wall Mart wants to sell bicycles they can buy them at a lower price simply because they can invest and order 20,000 bikes in one shot. For less successful stores ordering 500 bikes is a chore and difficult to afford. Just because it is difficult to compete does not equal it being a monopoly. The smaller chain stores are free to acquire investors and build resources greater than Wall Mart or Face Book for that matter. Action is only justified if crushing competition is the goal of a company which it clearly was with Microsoft a few years ago. The way forward is doing better yourself and not holding other people or companies back.
Facebook unilaterally decides the news that billions of people around the world see every day."
No, people choose to use FB as their news source rather than going to real news organizations. These people believe they don't have the time to read the source material and instead want to be spoon-fed dribs and drabs.
FB is offering the service. That people are too lazy to do their own footwork is not FB's problem.
"Facebook unilaterally decides the news that billions of people around the world see every day."
Yes because Murdoch with bskyb hasn't been doing this in a different form for years.
Why all of a sudden is "someone controlling the news" a new concept?
As a Rockford files Buff, I encourage everyone to watch the Episode "The House on Williis Avenue". Basically, they stumble on a "datacenter" in that era, 1978. And the purpose of it is to know everything from everyone.
"I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." Through the looking glass and what
What is Facebook demanding? Are they preventing other social media companies from existing? Do they somehow boss around computer and phone manufacturers?
For anti-trust to kick in, from what I've heard in the legal podcasts I listen to:
1. The company has to have a monopoly in a given sector. That's clearly not the case with Facebook.
2. The company has to be using it's monopoly position to prevent other companies from doing business. I'm not even sure *how* Facebook would go about doing that. Force Comcast to not route packets to Twitter?
The difference between Twitter and Facebook is pretty subtle. It's just the network effect. I don't think the public is served by a break-up.
-Dave
The great ideal would be a decentralised social platform, that no one entity controls, though there probably is no real business incentive to do so.
https://joinmastodon.org/
... shall rise again!
Surprisingly insightful branch and it even makes me wish I had a few mod points to share around, at least once in a while. Been many years since I've seen one...
Trying to put this in a clear positive light, it's about FREEDOM, but the root of the problem is that most people have very little understanding of it. For example, the big banks that JoeyRox mentioned think the most important freedom is to get rid of any regulations that interfere with greater profits. Microsoft thinks freedom should be which minor flavor of Microsoft software you use. Apple and the google and Exxon and Sony and IBM each have their own variations, but by now you should have noticed a unifying thread of freedom seen from a corporate perspective: It's the profits, stupid! They all worship at the same church:
"There is no gawd but Profit, and [corporate brand here] must be Profit's #1 prophet!"
Wrong. Freedom is a confusing thing, but it's mostly about choice. I've even refined my definition to a formula that can't even be displayed properly on Slashdot because of various implementation flaws... My sig has most of it, however.
Solutions! Get your fresh solutions here! At least I can join the "Freedom from Facebook (https://freedomfromfb.com/) campaign for the flank attack? Ya gotta start somewhere, eh?
Much more could be said, and I'm quite probably even known for my verbosity, but I'll close with the usual ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
What we have now is corporate cancerism. ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
1: Signatures cannot be verified.
2: Too easy for bots to ruin.
3: Everyone on the receiving end of petitions knows this.
Not a bad idea to break up Facebook, but holy shit why does every half-decent idea have to be ruined by "... and so we'll make an ONLINE PETITION to solve this!"
Today's captcha is "lacking". How fitting.
Do the eight groups in question have the guts to boycott FB. I'd love to never see another MoveOn post/repost there.....
All these progressives used to LOVE Facebook. They never cared about the fact that the company was making billions of dollars spying on them and selling everything it learned. The Obama people openly bragged about their use of the data they extracted from Facebook to win elections in 2008 and 2012 and these progressive groups were still just fine with it.
Clearly none of what they are complaining about now is an actual problem for these people.
What has them outraged now?
Word got out that Trump got elected in-part by using data his campaign bought from a firm that mined it on Facebook.
It's mighty funny to right-leaners to see the lefties turning on their own in the aftermath of 2016. Every outburst of totally crazy duplicity and desperate excuse making is cause to pop more popcorn. Every call these progressives make to have more government regulation of social media is even funnier - it simultaneously suppresses the ability of any new company to enter that business and helps the Zuck get locked-in as the default since he has the billions and the lawyers to satisfy any new regulations.
Look back at your first reply to me. (If you have replied to me on previous occasions, then I have no memory of you.) Right now I see slightly elevated tit for tat. On that basis I regard your other less impolite or rude questions, though superficially potentially interesting, as probably motivated by Sophistry. There is no reason to waste time with Sophists, though it happens from time to time. In general, they resort to Sophistry precisely because their positions cannot be defended upon their own merits. This weekend's real-world example involved an actual fascist, though I wasn't certain until he got to Mein Kampf after an hour of 'justified' Sophistry.
However, I will partly (and superficially) address your last question by saying that I regard freedom as much more important than such things as economic efficiency and increased profits for soulless and inhuman corporations.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.