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.
Watching Zuck squirm is good fun. May the trend continue.
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"
Land of bizarre, harmful regulations? That's the US, not the EU. No EU country jails 1% of its adult public. The US does. That should tell you something about the level of regulation and enforcement in the EU vs the USA.
I came here to say this... I can't imagine a world where any US company could be broken up by an external union / country. I suppose they mean by proxy by denying them assets, facilities, and advertising revenue (they could certainly make it illegal for a German company to pay for advertising on Facebook)... but directly? Surely they don't have that kind of reach and Zuck knows it. Eventually the lack of advertising dollars would induce Facebook to stop wanting to serve those users due to the burden it puts on the system, but I wonder if there is enough US advertising dollars aimed at foreign countries to still make it worth it. It's not like the users are going to willingly leave because they aren't being advertised to.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
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.
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....
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.
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.
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?
(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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
You clearly don't know anything about the EU.
-- Cheers!
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....
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.
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]
> 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.
How many continental scale wars have wiped out a significant percentage of the population of Europe since the formation of the Rolling Stones?
Therefore we must ensure the Rolling Stones never break up.
Also, I have a tiger repelling rock I am prepared to sell if you are interested.
In short, sometimes they are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you want to hold Facebook accountable for other people leaking your information?