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.
Regulate what they can't create.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
"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.
Seems like a valid reason to me.
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"
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
In a few veiled words I would explain to the piece of cow manure asking that question that if he or she were to get their dirty paws into my business I would use all of my resources to make their own lives a living hell.
You can't handle the truth.
Looks like someone wants some donations to their political campaigns.
Because they can't.
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!
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....
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.
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]
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.
... 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'.
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.
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 when asked to provide the names of competitors, Zuckerberg stated "MyPlus and Google Space!"
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.'"
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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!
China 10% tax on engines, bad bad bad.
America 10% tax on everything imported, what a great idea I'm so smart.