It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

[Slant]

Why do you folks keep moving goalposts?

First, Facebook's business is selling user information. That's been its business from the beginning. If users didn't realize that was what they were agreeing to, shame on them.

Second, if Facebook is going beyond their user agreements to abuse their users, that's completely separate from whether they're a monopoly; I don't care how big a company is if they're acting in that way, they deserve legal penalty.

I don't particularly like how Facebook treats its users as product, but that's why I don't use Facebook.

I've just come here, you posed a challenge, I pointed out the obvious retort. That you think people being dumb is an excuse to continue exploiting them when they get wise is a bit troubling. So no, not shame on them. Shame on you for expecting that a bad state should be irreversible. Selling privacy data as a business model is bad and the EU has not made idle threats when they told Facebook they better start behaving because an anti-trust case is already on the horizon.

User agreements, EULAs and Terms & Conditions are still subject to law. You can write whatever you like into those things, if they violate legal principles, they'll be tossed out the window faster than Facebook can rewrite them. You know this. Why even bring it up? There are lawyers doing nothing but picking T&C apart for money. Those are not the impenetrable armor you make them out to be.

We're talking politics here as much as legality. If the EU decides to throw a wrench into the gears of Facebook for political reasons, they'll be more than able to. All that's keeping Facebook out of trouble these days is really the goodwill of the EU and that for now Facebook isn't a serious threat. Once democracy becomes too dependant on Facebook doing its job properly, you'll see them be ripped apart by an anti-trust case rather quickly. And yes, I mean Democracy the principle and its very foundations itself.

Why do you think Twitter and Facebook are falling over themselves trying to patch holes in their system, implementing filters so fast and harsh they're beginning to block MPs of various Parliaments already? This isn't me fantasizing, this is happening already.

Edit: I've talked a lot about the anti-trust angle, but really, the EU's style would probably to regulate the fuck out of whatever they deem to define as "social media", including implementing oversight authorities with the power to indirectly intervene into social media company's businesses. It's a more pragmatic, less destructive and generally elegant solution to the "Facebook" problem.

[Kraenen]

Other than arguing for a shift to a socialist model of ownership, and taking action against illegal conduct by Facebook or its executives?

Those are what I consider reasonable.

Okay, so you're in favor of non-government coerced socialist model of ownership. And that will happen in a free society without the state... how exactly? For what it's worth I like the idea, I just don't get how it can be done at all, in a reliable way. Liberal societies gradually shift into hierarchy and without state-support to equalize power, leaders of CEOs will accumulate more power than the rest. I also don't see why you distinguish zuckerberg's profit-motive from an employee one.

This one works fine;

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de.../monopoly.html

Given that the "supply", here, is users, I don't see how Facebook has any control over that supply. Also note that users aren't their customers, and aren't paying any price; be sure you're approaching Facebook the right way, as a business.

What business in particular though? Oil companies? You can just ride your bike and then it isn't a monopoly. Outside of legal/state backing, are there any monopolies?

Facebook has a pretty solid control over their users. In fact it's not just retaining users and buying competition as well as incorporating new apps into its platform, it's increasing users.

Oh sure, Facebook users are the product themselves.

[Endus]

Okay, so you're in favor of non-government coerced socialist model of ownership. And that will happen in a free society without the state... how exactly?

It still happens with the state. The state is the entity that defines ownership and how it functions, after all. It isn't any more authoritarian than the current model would be, it's just changing some basic precepts.

I also don't see why you distinguish zuckerberg's profit-motive from an employee one.

I feel the profit motive can be useful, it's corrupted when it's based on individual ownership, where those profits come at the expense of everyone else. I consider it far less likely that a big company will behave unethically if all its employees own a share and get a say in those decisions. Not impossible, of course. Just less likely.

Loosely, the same reasons democracy tends to be less corruptible (or at least, at the same potential speed) as a dictatorship. Zuckerberg can just make decisions; he has a controlling interest in the company. Couldn't happen with an employee-ownership system.

What business in particular though? Oil companies? You can just ride your bike and then it isn't a monopoly. Outside of legal/state backing, are there any monopolies?

In this day and age? Not really. Global trade and such have rendered the idea a bit silly, without State intervention. The most recent example I can think of was DeBeers' control of the diamond market, and that's already been lost.

Facebook has a pretty solid control over their users. In fact it's not just retaining users and buying competition as well as incorporating new apps into its platform, it's increasing users.

This is what I was getting at earlier with "Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook".

Those users can use other services concurrently. They can leave Facebook whenever. Calling it "control" is a bit much.

[Slant]

This is what I was getting at earlier with "Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook".

Those users can use other services concurrently. They can leave Facebook whenever. Calling it "control" is a bit much.

Hmm... You're creating interesting thoughts in my head. See, Facebook doesn't just control "a thing". They control the database/servers, the protocols they use on their platform and then their user accounts.

Imagine a world in which the servers are provided by any random cloud service, because the database structure is open sourced, the protocols are open (kinda like HTML) and you can use whatever website you like to post content onto that database and view content from that database.

I'd like that. The interesting question is, who pays for the servers in the cloud? Is it access based and every website pays per hit? Would open up models for paid subscriptions, ad financed websites and all kinds of funky stuff.

As for your point: Sure, you can opt to use another service and not Facebook. Do you know any? Knowing how social media works, whoever gets the clear majority of users has a quasi monopoly on that segment of "social media". That's just how it works. It's a bit simple to say "Well, technically Facebook doesn't have a monopoly, you're free to use Google+". We've seen how that worked, and Google has quietly deactivated Google+ now.

[Tabrotar]

The pillaging of the customer in the US by these ISPs was one of the first things I noticed when I was in the US. Pathetic service and infrastructure at exorbitant prices and shady market slices. Data caps, snooping on the connection, throttling P2P and more, absolutely disgusting.

Meanwhile, here in my shithole native Romania, 1Gbit Internet, 9.5USD/month. No caps. 900-940Mbps down, 500-ish up. 50GB of cloud storage thrown in for good measure and some free online TV too. Mobile plan you ask? 5.6USD/month, no data cap, 50GB of initial speeds in 4G (varies a lot depending on location, 20-100Mb). VoLTE, VoWiFi, yep. Should I mention that I can use P2P without VPN? That P2P speeds are Internet speeds? No throttling? Yup. This is how things should be.

The competition is quite hardcore here. You get ISPs trying desperately to steal customers from the others with better plans, better complementary phones and so on. Considering how poor this country is, it's super clear something truly shady is happening in "the (real) West", where customers get crushed under incompetent ISPs.

If only Germany would be that advanced in terms of all things interlet related...

In my part of my small town we still only have ↓ 13,7 Mbit/s↑ 2,3 Mbit/s and as they didn´t have done anything related to streets/canalisation they ofc never changed the cables so yeah...

[Kraenen]

It still happens with the state. The state is the entity that defines ownership and how it functions, after all. It isn't any more authoritarian than the current model would be, it's just changing some basic precepts.

Which goes back to the previous point:

I care that Facebook is run by Zuckerberg for Zuckerberg's personal profits. That doesn't mean I think Zuckerbergs' rights should be breached without good reason, and I'm going to need more than hypotheticals and what-ifs to agree that Facebook needs legal action against it.

You wouldn't change the legality of his ownership but you would?

I feel the profit motive can be useful, it's corrupted when it's based on individual ownership, where those profits come at the expense of everyone else. I consider it far less likely that a big company will behave unethically if all its employees own a share and get a say in those decisions. Not impossible, of course. Just less likely.

Loosely, the same reasons democracy tends to be less corruptible (or at least, at the same potential speed) as a dictatorship. Zuckerberg can just make decisions; he has a controlling interest in the company. Couldn't happen with an employee-ownership system.

Would you make all employees equal owners though? This doesn't sound fair.

What I'm getting at is what's the mechanism? Employee stock options are already a thing - would you have the state take away zuckerberg's rights to that ownership over the company and shift it to employees after a certain amount of years of service?

[Azadina]

Or, you know....go back 10 years ago. when sword sticking was illegal, still, and the expected lifespan wasn't 30 years.

Cool. So 2009? Facebook had been in operation for half a decade, and twitter for 3 years. Just to name a couple. Youtube had been around for 4 years. This site was around too. What did you accomplish with this social media rollback of yours?

[Tabrotar]

I've just come here, you posed a challenge, I pointed out the obvious retort. That you think people being dumb is an excuse to continue exploiting them when they get wise is a bit troubling. So no, not shame on them. Shame on you for expecting that a bad state should be irreversible. Selling privacy data as a business model is bad and the EU has not made idle threats when they told Facebook they better start behaving because an anti-trust case is already on the horizon.

User agreements, EULAs and Terms & Conditions are still subject to law. You can write whatever you like into those things, if they violate legal principles, they'll be tossed out the window faster than Facebook can rewrite them. You know this. Why even bring it up? There are lawyers doing nothing but picking T&C apart for money. Those are not the impenetrable armor you make them out to be.

We're talking politics here as much as legality. If the EU decides to throw a wrench into the gears of Facebook for political reasons, they'll be more than able to. All that's keeping Facebook out of trouble these days is really the goodwill of the EU and that for now Facebook isn't a serious threat. Once democracy becomes too dependant on Facebook doing its job properly, you'll see them be ripped apart by an anti-trust case rather quickly. And yes, I mean Democracy the principle and its very foundations itself.

Why do you think Twitter and Facebook are falling over themselves trying to patch holes in their system, implementing filters so fast and harsh they're beginning to block MPs of various Parliaments already? This isn't me fantasizing, this is happening already.

Edit: I've talked a lot about the anti-trust angle, but really, the EU's style would probably to regulate the fuck out of whatever they deem to define as "social media", including implementing oversight authorities with the power to indirectly intervene into social media company's businesses. It's a more pragmatic, less destructive and generally elegant solution to the "Facebook" problem.

Having people decide what´s ok and what´s not is a elegant solution...

Yeah sorry but no that´s one of the most retarted things i ever have read.

[Endus]

Would you make all employees equal owners though? This doesn't sound fair.

What I'm getting at is what's the mechanism? Employee stock options are already a thing - would you have the state take away zuckerberg's rights to that ownership over the company and shift it to employees after a certain amount of years of service?

This is getting a bit derail-y, but in short form;

All employees own at least one voting share in the company they work for. Higher-ranking staff get more shares, the exact profile up to the company, but with some legal restrictions; perhaps it caps at executives having as many as 25 or 50 shares. Likely establish proportionality on this, where no one individual can have more than a certain proportion of total shares, to prevent smaller companies abusing this (boss has 50 shares, his 10 staff each have 1, their voices don't matter kind of thing). You retain the share and earn dividends as long as you work. Retiring would either see loss of the share entirely, or its transference to a non-voting share (an alternative to pensions).

It isn't a stock option, where staff can buy shares. That share is part of your basic compensation.

And yes; Zuckerberg would not be legally entitled to retain ownership of the company. There may be some shenanigans in the shift from one system to the other where companies must "buy back" said shares, but he simply would not own those shares any more. Nor would any current business owner.

The idea of being an "business owner" would pretty quickly cease to exist.

It's a shift in base principles; this seems harsh because you're acting on the basis that their ownership is "right", but if you approach it from a socialist perspective, it isn't. I'm also not trying to underplay how big a shift this is. I know it's big. That's why I'm not expecting this to happen in the near future.

[Tabrotar]

Sorry to hear about those speeds. i know i'd have issues with them.

Wanna laugh?

Here's the last gen superhightech we Romanians use to get ubiquitous 1Gbit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/com...a_cablu_baieti

Last generation FTTH cable management:

That´s good XD. No really if it´s possible to get that in Romania it SHOULD be possible to get that in Germany but i assume our IPS don´t compete enough with each other/there aren´t enough so yeah we have to deal with that.

Funnily regarding 5G some ministers argued that we don´t need it at every milk can and that the ones who will buy the licenses don´t need to bring it to every part of germany...

[crakerjack]

I don't think it should be split up but it's definitely a necessity if you want to keep in touch of the general populace. I don't use social media much, although I do have a facebook account that I haven't done anything with since 2011. Whenever I go outside and meet new people, they're always asking for my instagram/twitter/facebook and I just shrug. "Here's my number?"

[Draco-Onis]

Break all of the monopolies and oligarchies but the right only wants to focus on social media when there is a greater problem here.

[Slant]

Having people decide what´s ok and what´s not is a elegant solution...

Yeah sorry but no that´s one of the most retarted things i ever have read.

Of course it is, because you haven't thought about it and because "FREE SPEECH" burst a brain cell or two in your head and you got really annoyed that someone came along with a fascist idea like regulations... because in your head, that really just means me (yes, me personally) deciding that you (yes, you personally) are banned from Facebook forever. Because that's logic in your head.

If you want to know specifics, ask. Don't just assume shit and then respond to that.

[Tabrotar]

Of course it is, because you haven't thought about it and because "FREE SPEECH" burst a brain cell or two in your head and you got really annoyed that someone came along with a fascist idea like regulations... because in your head, that really just means me (yes, me personally) deciding that you (yes, you personally) are banned from Facebook forever. Because that's logic in your head.

If you want to know specifics, ask. Don't just assume shit and then respond to that.

Nah it´s bcs if we have people which decide what´s "bad/wrong" to say we open the box of pandora and as we´re both from germany you should remember the times when we had those very nice people which decides what was ok to say and think and what was not.

And then i´m shure even someone as stubborn and obrigkeitstreu as you can see where i come from and if not then i´m very sorry for you.

[Slant]

Nah it´s bcs if we have people which decide what´s "bad/wrong" to say we open the box of pandora and as we´re both from germany you should remember the times when we had those very nice people which decides what was ok to say and think and what was not.

And then i´m shure even someone as stubborn and obrigkeitstreu as you can see where i come from and if not then i´m very sorry for you.

Did you know your telephone line is regulated? So is your internet line. And the street you're walking on. The power lines. Your food. Heck, these days we're even regulating the air you're breathing.

Did you want to discuss the issue or just throw down some "Fascist!" right away?

[PenguinChan]

I don't get this attitude. Sure, life would be more interesting if we still had Gladiatorial death matches... but I'm fairly certain we've evolved beyond that. And social media really adds nothing to humanity but magnifying the misery and negativity.

You wouldn't be talking on this forum. Youtube wouldn't be a thing, twitch streaming, etc. -- everything as you know it on the internet would be gone basically. It's just a bunch of social media. And while I get the hyperbole - you're naive to think we actually evolved out of that mindset, I mean honestly. Illegal fights happen all the time, and besides - we have actual sports based all around fighting one another. MMA is about the most brutal we are getting and that's rather violent.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Facebook is old. Instagram is better.

Facebook owns instagram.

[Slant]

You wouldn't be talking on this forum. Youtube wouldn't be a thing, twitch streaming, etc. -- everything as you know it on the internet would be gone basically. It's just a bunch of social media. And while I get the hyperbole - you're naive to think we actually evolved out of that mindset, I mean honestly. Illegal fights happen all the time, and besides - we have actual sports based all around fighting one another. MMA is about the most brutal we are getting and that's rather violent.

This forum is hardly social media. Unless you call your morning breakfast table social media. Who's being hyperbolic now?

[dacoolist]

Funny, I was wondering why the quality of facebook users has gone up over the last 6 months: everyone that’s annoying closed their account ggclose and stay away, it’s been lovely

[Slant]

Funny, I was wondering why the quality of facebook users has gone up over the last 6 months: everyone that’s annoying closed their account ggclose and stay away, it’s been lovely

Or maybe it's because of Cambridge Analytica and both the US and EU telling Facebook to sort their shit out... but yeah, let's claim everyone that says they don't use Facebook is an asshole. That makes more sense... /s