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'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.