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.
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"
Seems like a valid reason to me.
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.
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?
How many continental scale wars have wiped out a significant percentage of the population of Europe since the formation of the EU?
Remember why the EU was formed, and then cower in shame for comparing your "microagressions" to the atrocities that the formation of the EU was intended to prevent.
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.