I'd say a way better approach is what was on HN recently where the chat platforms will have to enable 3rd party integrations effectively breaking the walled gardens. It makes way more sense to collapse the walls than distance and split the gardens
Maybe I misunderstood your reasoning but it seems like you're suggesting that Whatsapp for instance is forced to let third party clients connect to their system? That still gives Facebook access to data I don't want them to have. The whole point is to cut these information brokers entirely out of the loop, not force them into a compromise where they get some of what they want anyway.
I think that’s the worst possible solution. At the moment I have control over whether or not I have any conversations via Facebook’s platform. The forced 3rd Party integration completely takes that away. Facebook will weasel even further into the lives of those who actively try to avoid them.
Maybe, but the services might also be allowed to offer completely custom APIs. The proposal isn't quite clear on that. Also, at this stage it's just a draft that has a long way to go until it can come into effect and the chances that it gets altered into something completely different along the way are still pretty high. Don't get your hopes up yet.
Nobody said we _should_ focus only on Facebook? This kind of whataboutism is an easy way to deflect from fixing any one company, but if you've got three broken companies and you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix.
The problem is the lack of a coherent framework of rules that correctly apply existing constitutional principles to modern technology. The 4th amendment should have been sufficient to prevent the casual destruction of the concept of privacy, but it's become overwhelmingly apparent that we need an explicit framework protecting individual digital information rights. Make commercial surveillance illegal, or prevent mass harvesting of private data, and you've solved much of what's fundamentally wrong with big tech.
Problems with Facebook, et al, are symptoms of bad legislation. By focusing energy on "fixing" the companies, we risk losing sight of the institutional failures that allowed them to become a problem.
This is not a Whataboutism. I didn't raise a counter accusation, I said Facebook + others should be looked into - not only Facebook.
> but if you've got three broken companies and you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix.
Now, we've to somehow decide the order. I say with start at Amazon, the parent will say Facebook and someone else will say Apple. We are back to square one. Therefore, my suggestion was to take uniform and consistent action. Not, go after one organisation because of popularity.
Your suggestion reads like you want to stop progress on Facebook because you'd prefer amazon to be looked at first.
Unless your suggestion is to do them all simultaneously? But then who's going to synchronize all the hearings to make sure all the judges hit their gavels at the same time? And if one company stalls, won't that stop any action on any of them?
> Your suggestion reads like you want to stop progress on Facebook because you'd prefer amazon to be looked at first.
That wasn't my suggestion, really. The parent comment said that "We should start at Facebook". I facetiously said, "We can also start at Amazon or Apple".
> Unless your suggestion is to do them all simultaneously? But then who's going to synchronize all the hearings to make sure all the judges hit their gavels at the same time? And if one company stalls, won't that stop any action on any of them?
Mine would be to start somewhere, anywhere, and get momentum behind it. Fix at least one company (ideally more), fix the people who benefit from the current system, and fix the system itself. It's a ton of work, but since it's one of the biggest global issues right now, I'm sure we can resource it.
I'm doubtful if there is any material harm in those companies being under the same roof, and the benefit to consumers may just be that they are free services, but that doesn't have to be demonstrated.
They are not essential services, it's better to just not use them if you don't like them.
Where there needs to be more regulation is in Search Monopoly, Search Result Transparency, App Store Monopolies etc. - there are serious consumer and industry issues there.
I think there is consumer benefit to scale (particularly when it comes to social networks), and I don't see how Instagram and Facebook being separate entities improves or changes anything. They'll have the exact same owners, same employees, same management... the only difference will be that Zucc gets richer and the employee's W-2s will say Instagram Inc instead of Meta inc.
- Adam Mosseri is the CEO of Instagram. Do you think if Instagram gets spunoff he is terminated or something? No, he just remains the CEO of Instagram. Same is true for all the lower level managers, such as
- Nam Nguyen, who is the head of engineering at Instagram. He would remain head of engineering at the standalone Instagram. Maybe he'd get a cosmetic change to his job title like CTO or something.
- Ashley Yuki is the head of product at Instagram. Same with her, she'll stay head of product. They aren't going to fire and replace her just because Instagram trades under $GRAM instead of $FB.
Repeat this down the line for the rest of the people that run Instagram. Instagram will literally be the same product, with the same owners, same management, and same business model.
Be careful. You and I aren't consumers of Meta. We're part of the product. You're arguing that advertisers should get a better deal since they are the consumers in this case. Personally I don't like advertisers and seeing them get lower prices, more space etc does nothing for the average citizen imho...
I'm just pointing out that breaking up Facebook means a better deal for advertisers not users. They are the ones facing a monopoly. I'm happy for you or op to decide who is the "consumer" etc.
> I want this to be the start of a forced breakup of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram.
okay
> There’s zero benefit to consumers, and a lot of harm.
There's a ton of potential societal benefit in centralization and/or monopoly in theory. There's also a ton of potential downside. What in particular makes this fall in the latter bucket?
Where's the advantage of instagram, whatsapp and Facebook belonging to one company? The only advantage on any side I can see is combining user data and behavior data to improve ad revenue.
You could argue that features can make it easier across products, but each product would be big enough on their own to develop these features at little cost compared to their income. Apart from that there's no potential upside I can see for a user to have these products under one company.
The same applies to Giphy. Right now, messenger companies don't own Gif companies and it's still very easy to use them together. I don't see the benefit here for a user to have them owned by the same company.
> Where's the advantage of instagram, whatsapp and Facebook belonging to one company?
Common-ish arguments for monopolies, as applied to this situation:
* potentially the interoperability you indicate
* infrastructure investment leading to stability
* similarly: best in class client side software
* security / privacy guarantees (yes. I know, ironic, etc. but the fully distributed multi-company alternative is likely worse on these dimensions)
* single point of accountability for the state and law enforcement. (yes. not likely a HN concern. Still valuable to the state and potentially regular consumers.)
* general pro monopoly argument: fewer resources are wasted in competition, and so can be applied to product development and research. i.e. bell labs
IDK how I feel the scales tip in this case, but treating it as cut and dry feels a bit naive.
So turn it all into a state run company instead? Your points sound as if that would be a potential solution. But that would have its own issues with somewhat twisted incentive structures.
"* general pro monopoly argument: fewer resources are wasted in competition, and so can be applied to product development and research. i.e. bell labs"
You are arguing for Central Planning. You can't be pro-free market and pro monopoly.
At least government monopoly is theoretically accountable to the voters.
Transistors were originally invented during WW2. Reductio ad absurdum - we should have one big state monopoly controlling everything in the interests of permanent warfare.
