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."

Comments

As much as I dislike Facebook -

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:This is inane

[Zocalo]

I think the point is more that Facebook fills several niches, specifically Facebook (the main platform), Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. What they seem to be asking for is that they form a Google/Alphabet style structure with a parent company and a bunch of fully autonomous operating companies underneath that do not share data.

At least that's the plan as I see it. In practice all the various "autonomous" operations will almost certainly allow their users to login using your Facebook (the holding company, not the advertising platform) login for their convenience and still maintain access to each others data, only in a slightly less efficient and complete manner.