Slashdot Mirror
European Lawmakers Asked Mark Zuckerberg Why They Shouldn't Break Up Facebook (theverge.com)
European lawmakers questioned Mark Zuckerberg in Brussels today for almost an hour and a half, asking him to address concerns about the Cambridge Analytica data leak and Facebook's potential monopoly. German MEP Manfred Weber asked whether the Facebook CEO could name a single European alternative to his "empire," which includes apps like WhatsApp and Instagram in addition to Facebook. "I think it's time to discuss breaking up Facebook's monopoly, because it's already too much power in only one hand," said Weber. "So I ask you simple, and that is my final question: can you convince me not to do so?" Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt then chimed in and asked whether Facebook would cooperate with European antitrust authorities to determine whether the company was indeed a monopoly, and if it was, whether Facebook would accept splitting off WhatsApp or Messenger to remedy the problem. The Verge reports: The panel's format let Zuckerberg selectively reply to questions at the end of the session, and he didn't address Verhofstadt's points. Instead, he broadly outlined how Facebook views "competition" in various spaces. "We exist in a very competitive space where people use a lot of different tools for communication," said Zuckerberg. "From where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day" in the messaging and social networking space. He also said that Facebook didn't hold an advertising monopoly because it only controlled 6 percent of the global advertising market. (It's worth noting: this is still a huge number.) And he argued that Facebook promoted competition by making it easier for small businesses to reach larger audiences -- which is basically unrelated to the question of whether Facebook itself is a monopoly.
I'll take privacy over the kind of creativity that robs people of their privacy. Creativity is over-rated in this respect.
Europe should ban Facebook completely. Block all their servers until Zuck takes this seriously.
Watching Zuck squirm is good fun. May the trend continue.
German MEP Manfred Weber asked whether the Facebook CEO could name a single European alternative to his "empire,"
So you're a monopoly if no Europeans can compete with you?
This is a weird idea, that only domestic companies count as competitors.
A blunt/honest answer would be: "Because many of your citizens would think you are regulatory douche-bags for cutting them off from a popular global service, and you'll lose elections."
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with such citizens, only that such a move could create political backlash for those asking the question.
Table-ized A.I.
Seriously, they need to create 4-6 new companies from Google, Facebook, and possibly others. Then have them focus initially on single continent (ideally with employees located there, but, they can be split). After 1-2 years, allow them to compete where ever.
With this approach, each company is more responsive to the local nations, but also allows them the chance to better integrate with those nations before taking on each other.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
breaking them apart is not so much regulation as much as restoring competition. We need to do that with a number of companies. In fact, I think that the west needs to consider saying that any company that occupies say 50+% of a niche, can not be allowed in to do business, or they must accept being broken apart first.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"From where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day and we use our monopoly crush them all the time"
He has done nothing but deflect since this began - Cambridge Analytica wouldn't have had any data if Zuckerberg hadn't harvested it in the first place. The only remedy is to smack these companies themselves down a few notches, and I am hoping they do. It is high time for 'online privacy' to simply be considered 'privacy' rather than something separate and exploitable. I hope the hammer comes down on ALL of them.
Let’s pretend Facebook is broken up. What’s to stop them from simply trading the data with each other. PII (Personal Identifiable Information)? So they swap out one column, ID, with faceID, an “anonymized” version — except they will trade that too.
Bedides splitting up Fazebook won’t change any of the _existing_ data they already have.
...at least they have the balls to regulate instead of having their insides coated with dollar scented Vaseline!
Seems like a valid reason to me.
We can't create because we regulate.
No EU startup can compete with competitors from other countries because all our regulations are such a massive barrier of entry. We can't grow a company in low-regulation countries and then deal with the EU. We're hamstrung from the start.
Shares its collection of social media with NATO so everything is all legal and good in the EU?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Although I enjoy watching Zuckerjewberg squirm, this is just a lot of bullshit.
Nobody is forced to use Facebook. I don't, and I do just fine.
Everyone bitching about Facebook needs to piss off.
Seriously. I can simply opt out of using Facebook (indeed, I've never had an account). However, I can't opt out of the EU's bizarre laws and oppressive restrictions. The EU abuses its monopoly on aggression and causes me and my family and friends actual harm as a consequence.
Can anyone working for the EU convince me that it shouldn't be broken up? that it actually benefits the people of Europe on net?
Precisely. Facebook, Twitter and all the InstaSelf-Absorbed shit is not a 'creation'. It's an afflication on the world and it's future, and all this festering EZ-SwipePhone DouchePad millennial trash should be eradicated, ASAP.
This just proves they're not thinking people.
This problem is more complex than it looks. If they split Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram apart from each other, it may help with privacy and user choice a little. There may be less trading of information between affiliates and/or less requirement to sign up with one service to make use of another. But each of these companies will still be quasi-monopolies in their respective areas. The same goes for Google.
This may be inevitable -- anytime there are economies of scale in a market, you can get a natural monopoly, where no one can afford to compete with the incumbent firm(s). It cost a lot of money to build Google's search database Facebook's user network. It's nearly impossible for anyone else to come into those niches and compete with them. And do you even really want them too? How many people just use Google because it's good enough (extremely good really, compared to what came before), or Facebook because that's where their friends are?
The traditional answer to natural monopolies is regulation or government ownership. Regulation consists of the "utility compact" -- give the company a guaranteed monopoly, but regulate the prices they charge and the type of service they provide (e.g., require universal access). That's a no-brainer when dealing with essential services -- landline phones, electricity, water, bus service, and maybe Internet access (I would argue that this was the issue at the heart of network neutrality -- are ISPs common carriers or optional products?).
But does the idea of natural monopoly apply to "non-essential" services like Facebook and Google? Or maybe the cost of these services is just so low that we can ignore the inefficiency of having multiple providers in favor of innovation (e.g., people can signup for both WhatsApp and Skype, so what's the problem)? My instinct is that big tech companies may be edging into a gray area. Clearly people have alternatives to these companies, but on the other hand, due to their incumbent status, these companies have a huge advantage and are de facto the default provider for these services, a position they can abuse. We don't regulate electric utilities because they would cutoff service if we didn't; we regulate them so they can't abuse their dominant position. Should the same apply to big tech? I'd lean toward "probably not" at this point, but it's interesting to think about.
You can't regulate people's behavior... can't wait for fb to tell the EU to fuck off.
Facebook is an american company. It completely out of their jurisdiction to try and break them up. Europe is welcome to setup their version of the great firewall of china and block facebook if they like.
Now he is merely negotiating their price.
If EU wanted alternatives maybe they should ask Google why they killed Orkut. (created by a Turkish national)
There is also ASW, which is for the elites of European society. (and based in Switzerland I believe)
And there is also Netlog (aka Facebox) which is Belgian and still around. Certainly not as hugely popular as Facebook (like 0.5% the user base)
It's a bit ridiculous to expect "competition" in a market where the service is totally free (except for ASW). I'd argue that facebook users aren't really engaging in a commercial transactions.
What it really it really is is up to regulators, but thinking that it is a business or a monopoly is a mistake. I can start a social network site tonight, and Facebook can't stop me and isn't (as far as I know) going to keep users from my site. Google will probably happily index me in their search engine if it means I dilute Facebook's market share.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I quite dislike Facebook, and but I fail to see how breaking up Whatsapp and Messenger from Facebook would remedy anything exposed in the Cambridge Analytica affair.
This moron joe forgets Facebook was a stolen idea in the first place, then increasingly bastardized by Suckerberg.
Break up the Facebook empire? That's not going far enough. Burn the whole gods-be-damned thing to the ground. Set off an EM pulse bomb in every single datacenter Facebook uses, to fry every single server and wipe every single hard drive. Then nobody will have to worry about their data falling into the wrong hands again (at least not because of Facebook). Then: Google, you're next.
Capitalism is natural. That's why even the most brutal totalitarian-nightmare regimes like North Korea can't stop black markets from springing up, even under threat of death.
*Unchecked* capitalism is nearly as bad. Not quite. But if you don't put some kind of ceiling on it, these shitpiece billionaires turn into oligarchs and can rule your world from a yacht on the other side.
I don't normally respond to AC's, especially racist AC's, but you are wrong.
You don't have to use facebook for them to collect data on you, and THAT is the problem. They have their connect and like buttons on a VERY LARGE cross section of the internet, and in many third party products, like Spotify.
They know more about you than your mother does, and there are only a few ways to stop them, like blocking a list of about 1500 different domains, or you could just stop using the internet. I don't know about you, but as a web developer/designer, that last one isn't really an option.
This shit needs to be well regulated.
They might as well ask Zuckerberg to convince them not to nuke the moon.
The EU has zero ability to 'break up Facebook', and probably no legal right to even deal with it (not that the latter has ever bothered them).
The EU parliament has no ability to even propose legislation.
Their arrogance is very amusing though.
https://www.economist.com/grap...
MAY 20th will mark the end of “mental-health awareness week”, a campaign run by the Mental Health Foundation, a British charity. Roughly a quarter of British adults have been diagnosed at some point with a psychiatric disorder, costing the economy an estimated 4.5% of GDP per year. Such illnesses have many causes, but a growing body of research demonstrates that in young people they are linked with heavy consumption of social media.
According to a survey in 2017 by the Royal Society for Public Health, Britons aged 14-24 believe that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter have detrimental effects on their wellbeing. On average, they reported that these social networks gave them extra scope for self-expression and community-building. But they also said that the platforms exacerbated anxiety and depression, deprived them of sleep, exposed them to bullying and created worries about their body image and “FOMO” (“fear of missing out”). Academic studies have found that these problems tend to be particularly severe among frequent users.
What would be the public and government response be if these same symptoms were caused by something in our drinking water or in the air or in food?
Jeez, it's not that hard. Don't use the fucking thing, and when enough people do that, it goes out of biz.
Why the fuck do you all want a mass surveillance company all up in your shit?
Just don't use it.
âoeYou totally should.....not!â
(I'm assuming here you're from the U.S.. If not, please specify)
As if the U.S. federal political bodies such shining examples? The president isn't directly elected, but by some shady electors instead, that can vote entirely contrary to their given mandate. The government is solely selected by the president, so no direct representation there. Senate doesn't represent the populace, but the states as every state sends two representatives, whether the population of said state is '3' or 'almost everyone'. And each congressional district (which at least is made up of an equal divide of the population) can only elect one representative, which almost begs for a two-party system and is patently the most false form of democracy ever invented.
Now, compare this with the EU.
The EU presidents (every political body has one) are mostly chairmen. They preside over the debates in their respective bodies but have little more power. There are tree bodies.
The European Commission is the executive branch. It has one member of each state, that each minister a department. They are bound by oath to not act in national interest. If a single member needs to be dismissed, the president can do so. However, the EU parliament can order a vote of no-confidence which dismisses the entire European Commission.
The EU parliament could be somewhat compared to your house of representatives. Every country can vote for its proportionate number of representatives which ARE directly elected by the entire populace of said countries. EU political parties can campaign in every member state if they want to and after elections, representatives are (supposed to be) loyal to their political associations, not their nationality. The fact even the smallest country has 6 representatives, makes it a much better representation of the entire populace (it easily prevents a two-party system).
The European Council has one representative of each country. Its political head of state. In that regard it's much like your senate. It's up to the countries how they elect their heads of state. Some are directly elected, some are not. The heads of state safeguard at the national interests of the member states within the EU. They are particularly expected to. That's why decisions are taken in different ways (sometimes consensus, sometimes majority, sometimes unanimity) because different problems require different approaches. When that was deemed important, the way to vote on a certain type of problem was documented in the treaties that every member nation had to sign when joining the EU. No EU without treaties. Every member knew what it was getting into. If you don't like that, blame your parents (or grandparents). Now, getting out is an entirely different matter. Currently one member is trying to, but that story is going off topic too much.
If they think that Facebook having a near monopoly in social networks, if you think there should be competition between social networks, splitting off WhatsApp isn't a solution.
If you want Facebook to have competition, you might split it into two social network companies, Facebook and Bookface or whatever. You'd have Facebook A and Facebook B competing against each other, with different owners and boards.
Thinking WhatsApp, as a different company is going to be real competition for Facebook - well it makes me wonder if they're getting advice from representative Hank Johnson.
> "From where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day"
This could actually be true, but only for a few seconds until Zuckerberg smacks each little start-up into oblivion from his high castle using a team of elite lawyers.
His whole job probably feels like one giant game of whack-a-mole.
It is much more difficult to regulate the conglomerate than the subsidiaries, if the time comes. You simply get to a point that they can say "this is the way it works," and there isn't really much you can do. The incentive to break them up is in keeping them from being too ingrained that you cannot kill them.
Authoritarian? What percent of its population does the EU jail vs the US, which jails almost one in one hundred adults at any given time?
Capitalist companies aren't inherently good -- there's nothing wrong with the government regulating them. Direct election got people plenty of demagogues. How common is it to prosecute people over a tweet? You're sensationalizing. Neo-Nazis may occasionally be prosecuted, but so are Klansmen in the US.
Because THEY'RE NOT UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION!!! THEY'RE AN AMERICAN...oh wait, didn't they move to Ireland as a tax dodge? Ooh, that one really came back to burn then didn't it?
Idiot. Keep waiting.
The messaging apps and services of FB don't generate any income. They are worthwhile to FB because they funnel ever-more data about users that can be used to target advertising everywhere else. If the proposed subsidiaries are banned from selling the same data they ship to FB HQ today, they will die. There's no money in messaging apps. If they aren't banned, you've added paperwork, but have essentially changed nothing from the perspective of users or other EU citizens.
Why would they stay ? If they can't monetize their users, or if they are force to split, they might as well leave. They're not a "public right".
Barter and black-market mercantile activity are not capitalism, just as mercantilism was not capitalism. Capitalism involves investment in machinery, labor, and other costs too expensive for an individual artist: capitalism is thus a by-product of industrialization. Whereas one artist could built a kiln, gather clay, and make pots, thus owning his means of production, a worker in an industrial factory cannot afford to build his own factory: thus a class of capital providers (banks, shareholders) come together to provide working capital to purchase (and own) the means of production, which the worker does not own -- he merely earns a wage from it. This has nothing to do with black markets -- capitalism does not define the distribution of goods, just their production.
Looks like someone wants some donations to their political campaigns.
Because they can't.
American here, and while your assessment of U.S. federal government is slightly inaccurate, I would still take a parliamentary system over what we have.
The President is indirectly elected by electors, but those electors have never voted against their party mandate (a few have defected at various times, but never affected an election). "The government is solely selected by the president" is completely inaccurate. He nominates non-elected positions with Senate approval, but voting for the President is also a vote to say "this guy will nominate people with the same agenda as himself, and I want that." The President does not select any legislators. The only other "top level" officials are judges, including Supreme Court Justices, which are confirmed by the Senate. But he has nothing to do with Congress.
The legislature is a combination of state and population representation. This is very deliberate. The Senate represents the states, which is why each state has two. The House represents the People, which is why they have proportional representation. Both chambers must vote to pass any given bill before it can become law, giving them balance. There are other differences but nothing impacting how they are elected.
The reason why the U.S. is guaranteed to have a two-party system is not what I just described, but quite simply, any single election - President, Senator, Representative - uses the first past the post system. Forget about alliances once elected, the fact that a candidate must receive more than 50% of the vote to get into office in the first place means the best way to get elected is to consolidate parties until only two remain.
If we had any other voting method such as Instant Runoff or any one of another more balanced methods then this would no longer be true. We could have three or four parties. They would still need to form coalitions in the legislature to pass any bills, but those coalitions would shift based on the legislation in question. Party A may side with party B to try to pass one bill, and party C to pass another. However, changing this would require both parties that enjoy the current supermajority to amend the U.S. Constitution against their own best interests.
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
Who is "people" in this context? Nigel Farage? Alex Jones? Lyndon LaRouche? Random Internet commenters?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
First off, if I were Zuckerberg, I'd tell them to fuck right off.
If they continue to be ass-hats, I would tell them fine, I'll have all European accounts deleted, and not allow any further European accounts to be created. You European assholes can explain it to your own citizens.
But, since it is just me. I think I'd shut the whole thing down, and take the money I'd made. So long, MF's!
"The government is solely selected by the president" is completely inaccurate.
I think that might just be a mismatch of what the term "the government" means. In the US it can mean anything from the entirety of the national government, to any and all US governments, from national to local level. I think in Europe it means the bureaucracy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. So what he's saying is the President appoints people to fill the roles in the executive branch. He doesn't hire everyone directly, and many positions require Senate approval, but in that context the statement reads more or less correct to me.
Neo-Nazis may occasionally be prosecuted, but so are Klansmen in the US.
Only for very narrow exceptions to the 1st amendment such as inciting violence. They're not prosecuted just for saying horrible things. With that said, I don't know if Nazis are prosecuted for saying horrible things in Europe either, but my understanding is in many countries it's illegal to say things that are racist.
And he argued that Facebook promoted competition by making it easier for small businesses to reach larger audiences -- which is basically unrelated to the question of whether Facebook itself is a monopoly.
And it's also totally false... the internet is what lets small businesses reach a larger audience. As much as Facebook would like to make The Internet a wholly owned subsidiary, that's still not the case in... most places, I think some African or Asian villages might only have Facebook Essentials....
"undemocratic (because not directly elected)"... Except that MEPs (those who decide on what becomes law) are directly elected... US Presidents, however, aren't (the current incumbent didn't even get the most votes).
We need to do that with a number of companies. In fact, I think that the west needs to consider saying that any company that occupies say 50+% of a niche, can not be allowed in to do business,
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR? The EU is nothing but an irrelevant, undemocratic (because not directly elected), anti-capitalist (meddling with capitalist companies), authoritarian (because forcing ISPs to keep the data they want out of the hands of private companies, so they can give it to the police) institution where people are prosecuted for something as little as an "offensive" tweet. And then you expect the rest of the world to take you seriously.
Zuckerberg was being questioned by MEPs, that are directly elected. The supreme body is the Council of Ministers, drawn from elected governments. With some irony the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK parliamentary sysyem, the country standing against more powers for MEPs being Britain.
Not at all. Social Networking should be declared a mental health hazard. What you're doing is akin to saying that banning 9mm bullets will fix gun crime in America.
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
No one wonders that. It is easily explained by the mental condition of those using the term just as much as when you see someone use the term Micro$oft you can instantly see they are 14 years old.
The EU is nothing but an irrelevant
I'm going to stop you there since in 7 words you have effectively said all of the following
-I don't know history.
-I don't know why the EU was created.
-I don't know what the EU does.
-I don't know what it has achieved.
-I seriously have no fucking idea about international politics.
The EU has achieved its prime goal with great success. Maybe you should look up what that goal was, what life was like pre-EU, and why so many countries want to join.
With that said, I don't know if Nazis are prosecuted for saying horrible things in Europe either, but my understanding is in many countries it's illegal to say things that are racist.
European here.
I have to say that neither do I. I've never heard of a case where a Nazi was prosecuted for just saying horrible things.
The so called "hate-speech" laws doesn't translate that well to English.
For those that exist where I live the name of the law that is usually translated to "hate speech" would be better translated as "incitement against group of people".
The law came into place because previous laws regarding conspiracy to commit murder or assault required a specific victim.
This made it possible for neo-nazis to speak in generic terms and incite their group to commit violence against "parasites" or "vermin" without actually pointing out a target beforehand, so it was impossible to police them.
You won't get prosecuted for claiming that Jews are greedy bastards or that all Naggers are lazy. (Libel laws still requires a victim that can show damage.)
It's when you start talking about "doing something about them" and "exterminating the parasites" in an environment where people might take you seriously that you can be prosecuted.
That doesn't mean I can't joke about it among friends and god knows that I've made more than one inappropriate Hitler related joke in my days.
Since when does an empire have a monopoly on account of being an "empire". Are people using the Facebook empire? The way I see it Facebook is made up of a variety of platforms and except for the social media platform itself each of them have healthy competition on the continent. If the Belgian MEP wants to know what the alternatives are, why doesn't he ask his daughter who likely uses none of Facebook's "empire".
Mind you the entire question sounds like it was dreamed up in a coffee shop in Amsterdam. What would breaking up achieve? WhatsApp and Instagram were massively popular pre-Facebook. Ownership didn't change anything there, and breaking Facebook's social network out from the rest achieves nothing regards to Facebook's market power, nor does it prevent any of the things that various governments are questioning the Zuck about.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with GP's premise that Facebook is eliminating competition?
To be sure, you are saying that the competition is happy to be eliminated, but that's not the point. Otherwise, whenever some evil villain did something dastardly, like build a fracking CFC-manufacturing plant that spewed acid rain, you could argue, "But it's okay, they paid the city tons of money so they were happy to rezone the area to allow this plant."
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I'll take privacy over the kind of creativity that robs people of their privacy. Creativity is over-rated in this respect.
Great news! You CAN indeed have your privacy. Here’s what you do: when given a choice between asking a private organization like Facebook if you may please use their service for free, so that you can share your private information, thoughts, feelings, opinions, photos, etc., and.... not doing so, try.... um... not doing so. Unless I am misinformed, and Facebook’s personnel have been going around forcing people to use their service, at perhaps knife-point, or gun-point... but to the best of my knowledge they have not done this.
Using Facebook is strictly voluntary as far as I know. Now if you feel this is unfair because all your friends are on it, and you are unusually susceptible to peer pressure, and want to blame Mark Zuckerberg for your lack of backbone or the ability to think for yourself, that’s probably unfair on your part. Do you also blame McDonalds for making you fat, and monster truck rodeo promoters for making you stupid? To blame others for your own failings is to surrender your agency to others, something your parents’ and grandparents’ generations would have died of SHAME before doing. I miss those people... too bad they didn’t manage to imbue enough of their children with the same sense of personal responsibility and shame. (Shame gets a bad rap... it used to be effective at keeping people from doing things they should know they shouldn’t, like whining after the age of 12, or jacking off in public. We need more of that, not less.)
Anyway... Your move, sir or ma’am. Your move.
Fuck.
Y (see other side)
(Continued from front) ou.
Sincerely,
The Internet.
Unless Facebook just became a European company, (and maybe they already were, I don’t know, not using or giving a flying fuck about Facefuck,) they don’t really have the authority to break companies in other countries up. So they can eat a fat American hot dog.
And by hot dog, I mean, of course, a dick.
> like blocking a list of about 1500 different domains,
Are you a sock for APK? Your link is to a HOSTS file. Hosts files do not support wildcards, so you have to maintain a huge list like that to block all subdomains. But there are only five domains, which is very easy to manage on your router or with many free firewalls.
... And I steer well clear of Facebook, the answer to Weber should have been: "If you Europeans with your much-vaunted culture and with a population double of that of the US cannot come up with any alternative, it's your problem." As for the other inane questions he could have challenged them to ban Facebook and all related services throughout the EU and see how the citizens and especially the big EU advertisers would have liked it. Moreover most euro politicians rely heavily on Facebook for their online presence. They should be mindful that you can only stretch things so far. It would be a shame if all of the EU parliament members and candidates found their FB accounts suspended during the elections. Just sayin'.
The analogy of McDonalds and monster trucks fails, because when an idiot waddles into MacD or shuffles into a truck rally - it affects only them. But the people using facebook are leaking information about *other* people's lives, in a manner they have zero control over. Pictures, video, locations - all kinds of intimate details. Their agency over the matter is nonexistent. And worse, Facebook is all too happy to vacuum that personal information up. Store it. Study it. Sell it forever.
They construct a profile for people who never even looked at the service.
That's hardly voluntary, if you don't know it's happening.
Why would they stay ? If they can't monetize their users, or if they are force to split, they might as well leave. They're not a "public right".
as a european I would welcome facebooks exit from europe... you can keep your creepy spy firm in the US thanks you very much... tell them to remove all EU data and any future data collected from the EU... thanks...
we do not need and do not want FB in the EU!
Why would they leave? If they break it up, the same people own the stock, the same people make the profits.
It just splits up the operations and makes it slightly less efficient, e.g., they spend a little more on labor but are still profitable.
It makes way more sense to imagine a company fighting back when they're being asked to actually change the way they do business, like telling them to limit what they link to on a page, or where they place their sidebars.
Hmm, downvoted without rebuttal, maybe it was my tone or maybe it's because the Southern Poverty Law Center is moderating /. just like it's doing at Facebook. You know, the people that call everything under the sun "racist", even if you just referred to "exceedingly violent" gang members as animals during a roundtable and in response to comments about MS-13 (full transcript). At least the AP retracted their statement, despite their laughable excuse.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no great fan of Facebook but the reality is they are just the whipping boy for the real privacy criminals, banks, credit reporting services and online retailers.
Having a shadow profile when you never use the service and having your face added to their face recognition system just because someone else uploads a picture you are in is not voluntary!
The difference is that Jew is an ethnic group, with a clear and demonstrable genetic heritage. 23andMe won't tell you 8% Christian or 43% Muslim, but it definitely will give you a % of Jew.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with GP's premise that Facebook is eliminating competition?
To be sure, you are saying that the competition is happy to be eliminated, but that's not the point.
I think you misunderstand. While there are certainly some companies out there that present legitimate competition to Facebook and others, not all of them do. In fact, though I do not have data to back it up, I have talked with enough people on the startup scene that I get the sense that very few startups intend to compete directly with Facebook and others. Their objective from the early on is to fille a niche that is ignored by the big guys or to get acquired. If not for the possibility of getting acquired, it is even likely that they would not have started up. I do not consider that real competition.
Now, where I think the focus should be is on Facebook' and others' leveraged buyouts or hostile takeovers (or those done by their proxies). Those are far more likely to be cases of real competition being stifled.
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
No one wonders that. It is easily explained by the mental condition of those using the term just as much as when you see someone use the term Micro$oft you can instantly see they are 14 years old.
The EU is nothing but an irrelevant
I'm going to stop you there since in 7 words you have effectively said all of the following -I don't know history. -I don't know why the EU was created. -I don't know what the EU does. -I don't know what it has achieved. -I seriously have no fucking idea about international politics.
The EU has achieved its prime goal with great success. Maybe you should look up what that goal was, what life was like pre-EU, and why so many countries want to join.
You forgot:
“-I don’t know what the letters EU stand for.”
“-I don’t know how many countries are in the EU.
“-I don’t know how many letters are in the abbreviation ‘EU’.”
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
> And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
Actually, no I don't because I've never heard that before
> The EU is nothing but an irrelevant, undemocratic (because not directly elected)
If you are a citizen of a european state you directly vote on the EU representatives of your country and each representative has one vote.
What part about that is not direct election?
> anti-capitalist (meddling with capitalist companies)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#United_States_antitrust
> authoritarian (because forcing ISPs to keep the data they want out of the hands of private companies, so they can give it to the police)
Wait, you think that's a bad thing?
> institution where people are prosecuted for something as little as an "offensive" tweet.
Source please?
And when asked to provide the names of competitors, Zuckerberg stated "MyPlus and Google Space!"
The EU has achieved its prime goal with great success. Maybe you should look up what that goal was, what life was like pre-EU, and why so many countries want to join.
Good summary. One, Facebook-specific thing, I would add: Zuckerberg appeared in person before the EU parliament but has flatly refused all demands to appear before the UK parliament. He clearly feels that, as CEO of a multi-billion dollar multi-national company, he can safely ignore most national governments; but the EU parliament (representing 27 European countries) cannot be so easily brushed off.
The electoral college exists to strengthen the voting power of smaller states. The city of New York has more people in it than the ten least populated states in the country. Don't you learn this in school?
Facebook is doing as much as it can to avoid privacy or any sort of accountability relating to privacy. So much so that they are moving their data centres so that they wont have to abide by GDPR legislation. This alone is good enough reason for anyone to be suspicious of Facebook. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech... I certainly wont be allowing any company that doesn't comply with GDPR to hold my personal dfata.
we do not need and do not want FB in the EU!
Maybe you don't want FB in the EU. A quick search tells me that there are hundreds of millions of EU citizens that would disagree. Shadow profiles aside, Facebook isn't forcing people to create accounts. They're volunteering to be tracked in exchange for communication options. Lots of people want Facebook. Lots of people hate Facebook. Some people fall in both camps.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
To be sure, you are saying that the competition is happy to be eliminated,
No, the competition wouldn't exist if not for the opportunity to be eliminated, making a profit in the process.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
(Shame gets a bad rap... it used to be effective at keeping people from doing things they should know they shouldn’t, like whining after the age of 12, or jacking off in public. We need more of that, not less.)
Says the person, jacking off over this issue and whining about the lack of shame.
That said, I quite agree. Do shut up.
In short, sometimes they are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You sound like a British gammon, so I'll bite as a fellow (albeit less ham-like) Brit.
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
I have literally never heard, or read, anybody refer to the EU as the EUSSR, apart from yourself. Sounds like something the Daily Mail or Sun created; the bastions of fine journalism that they are.
The EU is nothing but an irrelevant, undemocratic (because not directly elected)
Like the Prime Minister and the House of Lords. Next!
anti-capitalist (meddling with capitalist companies)
Are anti-monopoly laws a bad thing? Why do you care, anyway? Do you own such a company? Perhaps you want Zuckerberg to be PM? Given that it's the party and not the PM who is elected, he stands as good a chance as any, I suppose.
authoritarian (because forcing ISPs to keep the data they want out of the hands of private companies, so they can give it to the police) institution where people are prosecuted for something as little as an "offensive" tweet.
The UK government mandated this. Specifically, Theresa May mandated this in the Snooper's Charter. Look it up!
And then you expect the rest of the world to take you seriously.
You can climb down from your high horse, now, Sir Gammon. Your ignorance is showing.
More like he appeared before the toothless and useless EU parliament so he could say he's addressed all the European's concerns so he doesnt have to appear before any of the individual nation parliaments the actually could do something against facebook at the the national level.
If you're a specimen of the aforementioned doomed demographic, this can't come soon enough!
Countries wanted to join because they had been destroyed by communism and wanted Germany and the UK to lend them billions, which they knew they'd not be able to pay back. France loved it because they were wealthy in the 70s and 80s, but are now following Spain into financial hell. The UK is leaving, Italy isn't far away, and the Nordic countries merely pay a subscription fee to trade with the bloc. The EU is done, the 88,000 unelected civil servants in Brussels are doing all they can to protect their pensions.
You choose to conflate Europe rebuilding after WWII, and a collective trade bloc that changes rules on a whim, and blocks member trade with 92% of the global market unless it goes through the EU first. Sounds very much like extreme trade-unionism to me, and we saw how that ended.
You're irrationally upset about something that doesn't even concern you.
At last, at last, the European Parliament is in the news.
At last, at last, elected MEPs are named in the news.
At last, at last, the words of elected MEPs are quoted in the news.
I am in tears typing this. I am in Hazlemere, in Buckinghamshire, UK. Why has it taken so long?
For so long, the news media in the UK has behaved as if there is no such thing as the European Parliament. Newspaper after newspaper has been printed without mentioning a single word said in the European Parliament. Or any of the other 6 institutions of the European Union, or any of the 33 agencies of the EU. The only UK daily paper to mention the EP regularly is the Financial Times.
The UK has 73 elected MEPs out of the 751 in the EP. Three-quarters of UK MEPs have a constructive attitude. Catherine Bearder MEP, Richard Corbett MEP and Keith Taylor MEP are examples of MEPs with a good attitude. I have met the first two and had replies from the third.
In the European Parliament on 28 June 2016, Guy Verhofstadt MEP said, "What is so hard for me, is the way it succeeded". Talking about the referendum. My heart went out to him because he truly spoke for me.
Manfred Weber MEP said, "Our message to the young generation of the United Kingdom is, you can continue to trust in your friends in Europe. We don't leave you on your own". Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert said, "No country on earth, nor Europe has a whole, can isolate itself from a world in turmoil. We must face these challenges together, as best we can..." (tinyurl.com/hapsdkq)
Yesterday I got a reply from a man who works as a political administrator in the Council of the European Union. The Council is the meeting of heads of government departments of the 28 national governments. Such as farm ministers. His name, Leo Schulte-Nordholt. I met him at the rally in Brussels last year. He replied to me with, "We are here, waiting, full of hope". Again I was in tears, bittersweet, I want to be part of the European family, I am in tears again now!
We have a new national weekly paper in the UK now, it's called The New European. It's for people who support EU.
I have joined the ALDE Party, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe. It's the sister party of the UK Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament.
For those of you who are new to EU, may I recommend "The European Parliament - The Citizens' Voice in the EU". For more detail, "The European Union explained - how the European Union works". Both from EU Publications Office (bookshop.europa.eu).
Fuck off, Europe. Make your own internet if you don't like ours.
that many of these people are so against any PRIVATE business having a "monopoly" because the competition didn't do as well, but would have no issue with a government-run "monopoly" doing the same thing.
That is because the moguls that control the UK media want it that way and why they've spent two decades lying every day about the EU.
The US government and electoral process was designed to facilitate representation of the minority. Straight democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
First off, I am American. Politically, I used to be Libertarian, but am now GDI.
Secondly, I have nothing against NATURAL monopolies. But, Google, FB, etc are maintaining their monopolies via numerous illegal manners (which is in part why they removed the 'do no evil' moniker). Back when the google boys ran Google, they were all about do no evil and never cheated. Now adays, Google constantly cheats and is becoming worthless.
Then you have FB. Selling ALL of our information. Not obeying laws, etc. FB has almost always been evil.
Third, you have the issue of taxation. To be fair, I blame the GD politicians for these issues, not the companies are doing LEGAL, but unethical, tax work around. All of these nations want to get their own companies breaks, but do not want over seas companies the same breaks. The idea of no longer taxing the net has to be one of the STUPIDEST that I have seen. For example, America (and perhaps EU) should be taxing everything that flows over a border and simply have the delivery company collect it. For America, I would tax it at a straight 10%. Note that it solves the sales tax on Amazon/Google shops, but it really does not solve the corporate taxes which is a whole other issue.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So you want to hold Facebook accountable for other people leaking your information?
"I am now GDI". As opposed to NOD? Seriously, I have no idea what that means.
Can you read English? See the part where FACEBOOK IS COLLECTING & SELLING MY INFORMATION - UNAUTHORIZED
you stupid FaceFuck
In Windys case it means God Damn Idiot.
Of course you want to put a tax on everything flowing across the boarder. What better way to tax everyone else and give a free kick to American companies. You would be the first to cry though if another country attempted to stick a 10% tariff on US goods.
> I think you misunderstand.
Please stop trying to kneejerk so hard. You just keep confirming that you're not disagreeing at all and just wanted to feel like you were adding to the conversation by demonstrating what a bro you are.
Firewall filters work when you are behind them.
What about your phone when out in the real world, or travelling?
Not everyone has a personal VPN back into their house where the router might be controlled. Businesses aren't likely to filter all of factebook.
What about the pre-installed facebook app on the devices that cannot be removed, is never used, but insists on sending location data back to the borg hive?
A "shadow profile" is created without that person's consent or knowledge. Forcing someone to have an account they * DO * NOT * WANT *. So you think doing it unsoliticited on their behalf absolves them?
Yeah that's what I thought.
What do they propose Facebook has a monopoly on?
I mean, there are thousands upon thousands of social networks out there. So, what is it exactly that Facebook is proposed to hold a monopoly on?
Absolutely not. Shadow profiles are shady. When I excluded them, I was emphasizing that there were hundreds of millions of accounts belonging to people who requested them, i.e. people who want FB in the EU. That doesn't excuse FB's shadow profile behavior anywhere. FB's hardly the only one collecting data on prospective customers, but it's shady.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
From my standpoint, with net neutrality in place (as at least the EU still has) an internet website monopoly is impossible as someone else can just type in a different web address into their browser at any time. As far as the EU is concerned if their isn't a service offered by a European company it isn't because no one has bothered to write the code and build the server infrastructure then it must be a monopoly, Ignoring the fact the type offering from the website in question was thought up and create by someone not in Europe. Anyone from Europe is free to make their own social network. The only things stopping them is their one desire to actually do so and market themselves in a way that actually gets people to pay enough attention to them to get a critical mass in order to make the service appealing. But no, they just want someone who has already done that to be forced to sell off one of their successful products instead.
antisemitism /= racism because a religion is not a race.
Being semitic does not refer to a specific religion. It refers to people with ancestry from a certain part of the world, and covers people of several religions.
I'm sick of hearing these ridiculous non-answers from tech giants, politicians, etc. Don't they realize that when you don't give a full answer, they can and will assume the absolute worst? The questions are only being asked because they already believe what they're asking. You have one chance to convince them otherwise. Give a non-answer, and you didn't even try. Such arrogance and ignorance -- always a dangerous combination.
I've never heard of a case where a Nazi was prosecuted for just saying horrible things.
Let me help you out, then: an Austrian man will be serving six months in prison for simply having a bottle of wine in his house with a picture of Hitler on it. He didn't say anything, nor was he selling or distributing the bottles. There's no evidence that the man was a Nazi sympathizer, or held racist views in any way. He simply bought some bottles as a joke souvenir on a trip. And for that, he's going to prison.
America certainly has it's faults, but whenever I see a news article like this about Europe, I practically hear Lee Greenwood.
"I think it's time to discuss breaking up Facebook's monopoly, because it's already too much power in only one hand," said Weber. "So I ask you simple, and that is my final question: can you convince me not to do so?"
Zukerberg sighed, knowing the "convincing" the politician needed involved his hand behind his back, fingers wagging. This was why these people went into power, to get in the way, to be paid to get back out of the way.
For now he would play the contrition game. Many were the useless idiots who fervently believed in the surface argument. The politician relied on them for his profits. It didn't even matter if the issue was real or not. Even if so, that was not the driving factor.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And I hope he fucks off back to America where he sells people's souls for the almighty dollar. Priorities over there are more aligned to ancient Romes elites than human rights
When you probe these cases, often the reality doesnt match the headlines.
France's economy is growing well. http://m.en.rfi.fr/economy/201... Italy has a politician that is anti EUROZONE.https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/916249/Italy-Italian-election-2018-polls-anti-euro-EU-European-Union-Eurozone-Lega-Constitution not the EU
If they aren't banned, you've added paperwork, but have essentially changed nothing from the perspective of users or other EU citizens
Wait, you would have hurt Facebook, at least. It does not fix anything, but that is not so bad!
I'm going to stop you there since in 7 words you have effectively said all of the following
In fact, it is you who is ignorant. The EU was great until the early 2000s, when they started this "constitution" crap. It was voted out, and I was one of the people to vote against it, in May 2005. Did the politicians listen to my vote? No, they did not. They came up with a slightly altered version and decided to not put it up for a vote and pass it anyway.
The EU is nothing but a dictatorship that was voted out, but still managed to stay.
And my passport says "European Union".
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
(I'm assuming here you're from the U.S.. If not, please specify)
I am an EU Citizen.
patently the most false form of democracy ever invented
I would argue the opposite. In my home country, I don't have direct representation. I can elect liberal, green or left, and those parties decide who gets to fill the parliamentary seats. The U.S. House of Representatives are just that: people who represent their constituents from their districts. The counter balance to those "populist"-by-design politicians is the Senate, where each State gets an equal amount of representatives (2).
Contrary to most EU democracies, in the U.S. there is a very delicate balance between legislative, executive and judicial bodies: each has enough power to block the other. In my home country, the Supreme Court equivalent cannot prevent laws from becoming active. The U.S. Supreme Court does have that power. The Executive Branch of the U.S. is headed by a (pretty much) directly elected President. In my home country, it is headed by the person chosen by the Politburo of the party that happened to receive the most votes. I.E.: no direct elections at all.
The EU wants nothing but more and more power, more and more money, and more and more legislation to justify their own existence. Not to mention that they want to meddle with foreign corporations.
The EU needs to get their stinky hands out of U.S. corporations. If it weren't for the U.S., you'd all be speaking Russian or German by now.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
"We" glad the EU chose you to be their spokesperson...
Or mb you have no idea what you are talking about? That stupid law is unreasonable and retarded. It is not providing any true privacy but instead is costing lots of pain and money to IT of every company. It is simple, its a free service, it is up to u to post your life on it and complain about it later or not.
And what did he do to u? Its a free service, dont use it if u dont like it.
What exactly are you talking about? What monopoly? They are free services with huge competition. Why dont you call yahoo or myspace a monopoly? They were like 10 years ago and now they are dead. Internet business is fast moving, fast changing and its crazy hard for those guys to stay on top. Look at their competition, one day snapchat comes out and millions of users leave fb for an application for sharing dÃ--ck pics. What other company out there has to deal with competition that is moving this fast?
China 10% tax on engines, bad bad bad.
America 10% tax on everything imported, what a great idea I'm so smart.
China and Europe have loads of tariffs on American products. And China has VAT that is applied to imports and then they give a tax break to most every Chinese owned company.
So in your example, the billionaires that self fund startups and destroy competition through buyouts and destruction fall under... What, exactly?
Hahaha, you are so full of shit.
China 10% tax on engines, bad bad bad.
America 10% tax on everything imported, what a great idea I'm so smart.