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.
Watching Zuck squirm is good fun. May the trend continue.
Isn't Facebook an Irish company, like so many other big corps who park their corporate HQ there, to avoid paying their fair share of taxes? I guess that makes them a Euro company....
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.
(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.
Facebook's international headquarters are in Ireland. Thus they are obligated to follow European law, same as any other company doing business in Europe. You do not get to ignore the law just because that is better for your profits.
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.