May 9, 2019

"Mark [Zuckerberg]’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of almost anyone else in the private sector or in government."

"Because Mr. Zuckerberg controls most of the company’s voting shares, Facebook’s board 'works more like an advisory committee,' and he alone can decide how to configure the algorithms of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, determining who sees what. It’s a power that could be used to make or break rival companies or political candidates."

From "5 Takeaways From Chris Hughes’s Call to Break Up Facebook/A co-founder is alarmed by Mark Zuckerberg’s power and wants to rein in the company" by the NYT Editorial Board.

The editorial ends: "Mr. Hughes’s call for breaking up Facebook may have greater resonance given the political moment. The Democratic senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has called explicitly for the breakup of tech giants including Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook. Another Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, has echoed Ms. Warren’s call, saying the country has a 'monopoly problem.'"

The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?

76 comments:

Dave Begley said...

Does Hughes still own a bunch of shares? I bet he does.

Maybe Hughes is mad at because the Russians were able to buy a tiny bit of Facebooks ads against Hillary.

Zuck is a Progressive dictator. What's not to like?

Levi Starks said...

The last time I checked Ann has total control of Althouse.
When is someone going to break that up?

traditionalguy said...

Practice Tip: Facebook is owned and operated by the rogue CIA . So it always does what they want done. There is no other logic applicable to Zuckerberg's role. The narrative of a heroic neat guy from Harvard who supposedly invented the world's premier World Wide Intelligence gathering tool in his dorm room for social fun is only a cover story.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

The collective left are anti-free speech totalitarian Nazis

The democratics are terrified of any criticism or sunlight.

Matt Sablan said...

Yes, but Democrats are pretty sure that they could help themselves better.

Russell said...

Warren's call for breaking up these companies ensures they will actively help the Democrats to prevent said breakups. Its an 'or else' threat.

rehajm said...

Not as powerful as 100k of Russian bought ads, amirite???

madAsHell said...

Elizabeth Warren......what a wanna-bee!!

Sebastian said...

Yeah, but how many tanks does he have?

Anyway, in an act of unprecedented #Resistance I have denied Mark Z. any power over my life. I urge you to do the same. Stand up to The Hoodie Man.

Wince said...

The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?

Maybe these political class Democrats want more numerous, individually less powerful hive-minds running the tech sector that are even more beholden to them?

Cato Renasci said...

The tech giants want regulation they can control - hence the calls now. Any antitrust litigation will be in the courts for decades while they continue their merry way, and in the interim they'll agree to regulations that make entry harder and solidify their positions: win for them, win for the Democrats. America and liberty are the losers.

Expat(ish) said...

You want Facebook to have less power?

Stop using it. Don't click on links. Don't use messenger. Don't use ....

The network effect works in both directions.

FB, like AOL, is Ozymandeus.

-XC

Mr. Majestyk said...

How could you divide a company like Facebook into two or more separate companies?

Rick said...

Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?

Of course. But the calls to reduce Facebook's power continue because it can be unwittingly used by others. It's the nature of authoritarians to believe use of anything contrary to their own interest is illegitimate and therefore appropriately stopped by force.

RK said...

Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?

Zuckerberg is getting into his mid-thirties. His increasing mental maturity makes it more likely that his political views will shift to the right. Better stop him now.

Bill Peschel said...

"The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?"

The GOP had been saying for years "elect us and we'll kill Obamacare."

We did, and they didn't.

Same thing with the Dems: "Elect us and we'll kill Facebook and Google."

Afterwards, "we didn't say that."

Nonapod said...

It's funny how Twitter always escapes Democrat ire, and it's at least as influential as Facebook. But Twitter has been much more aggressive about banning prominent conservatives.

James Graham said...

Why is amazon lumped with Facebook and Twitter and called a "tech" company?

Amazon to most Americans is a retailer.

Period.

It's how they buy stuff.

When amazon announced one-day delivery the stocks of Walmart and Target tanked.

The stock market understands, amazon is a retailer.

Yes it uses tech brilliantly but Walmart and Target managements get it as do millions of consumers.

Fernandinande said...

"It’s a power that could be used to make or break rival companies or political candidates."

Aww, the NYT Editorial Board is jealous: "That was our job!" How cute.

You want Facebook to have less power?

Not really, since I don't use it and haven't heard of any actual, concrete problems with it.

Automatic_Wing said...

I think there's always been the sense among the SJW vanguard that Mark Zuckerberg is insufficiently committed to The Cause. He's not quite woke enough, and that's problematic!

Wince said...

Mr. Majestyk said...
How could you divide a company like Facebook into two or more separate companies?.

I think the ultimate counterbalance to Facebook in particular is market competition, which might require regulatory enablement rather than last century trust busting.

The goal would be have each user in control of their own social media platform (and privacy). Each platform provider would adopt certain uniform connective protocols that would allow each user to subscribe to and connect with one or more competing "Facebooks" forums that connect a user base together.

There would be multiple competing "platform" companies and competing "forum" companies. They would compete on price, privacy, features and the quality of the forums created and the degree of interconnectedness between them.

elkh1 said...

Isn't Facebook trying to help Democrats?

Yes, but that cannot atone for the unforgivable sin of letting Trump mine their data and "stole" the election. Their data should only be used by Democrats.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mr. Majestyk said...
How could you divide a company like Facebook into two or more separate companies?

One way would be to separate the viewing/posting platform from the news aggregation functionality. So users could have the network to connect to their friends, but choose a third party to filter what news/posts/ads they see. Would need to work out the revenue so the platform gets its cut.

Not saying I recommend this. Just offering it as a possibility.

Caligula said...

"Why is amazon lumped with Facebook and Twitter and called a "tech" company?"

Amazon differs from the other tech companies in that it has a large physical presence in its warehouses and other distribution assets.

But, Amazon Web Services may be the largest tech services company that many Americans have never heard of, and Kindle and Alexa devices, and Amazon's streaming and content-download services, make it more than just another merchant that happens to sell online.

Ken B said...

James Graham
Amazon is the 800 pound gorilla in cloud services. It emphatically is a tech giant.

TrespassersW said...

minds.com = free speech + blockchain

Here's a good place to start getting a handle on how minds.com works: https://www.minds.com/blog/view/947760446193217536

I'm on it as @rjacobse, but don't post a lot. Yet. Getting ready to drop Facebook, though. (Dropped Twitter a good while ago.)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?

Yes, they certainly are, but the political moment is towards populism on both the Left and Right (thus the enthusiasm for both Trump and Bernie/Warren) and populism of that type has historically been keen on using the power of the government to punish businesses they dislike.

The Right has for many decades tempered that instinct with public affirmations of being pro-market while usually taking pro-business (and pro-big business/crony capitalist) stances. With Trump as a "fuck it" type candidate the Republican appetite for strongly defending, for principled free-market reasons, big business like Facebook, Alphabet, etc (who have been openly hostile to the Right) from Left-directed populist attacks has diminished.

That's the political moment alluded to here, I think.

Anonymous said...

My usual rant is that a publicly traded company that has control interests ahead of the equity owners' interests has a fundamental problem. The original non-public owners want the benefit of public capital markets without the corresponding discipline of the public capital markets. Facebook's management issues seemed to me to be predictable, if for no other reason than the founder has unchecked power over the company. For what it's worth, The New York Times Company has a similar stock structure: The common shareholders can't fire the management. I believe Alphabet, Inc., Google's parent, is structured similarly. Maybe this kind of public company ownership structure needs some scrutiny.

elkh1 said...

Amazon is not just a retailer. Their Cloud AWS dominates. That is high technology. High tech or not, Amazon should be broken up.

Break up Facebook, free Instagram and Whatsapp.

Break up Google. Google is Evil. It is helping the Chinese govt. track their internet users, and arrest those who dare to breach the govt.'s Fire Wall for a glimpse of the outside world. Google will provide the jailer almost instantaneous info to what phone number or IP address is in use, and where the user is. These failed Fire Wall escapees are jailed for 3 to 5 years.

Google owns Blogspot, and Youtube. They can de-platform anyone that rubs them the wrong way and refuse ads that criticize their favorite Democrats, the same way Facebook and Twitter are doing.

Apple and Microsoft will be clobbered by competitions. Google is the most powerful competitor. Amazon too.

Anonymous said...

People like Warren call for tech giants to be broken up because they're not censoring and controlling the dissemination of opinion and ideas *enough*.

Which is of a piece with Russell's comment above: "Warren's call for breaking up these companies ensures they will actively help the Democrats to prevent said breakups. Its an 'or else' threat."

gilbar said...

Levi Starks said... The last time I checked Ann has total control of Althouse.

Meade? Any Comments?

TrespassersW said...

gilbar said...
Levi Starks said... The last time I checked Ann has total control of Althouse.

Meade? Any Comments?


Remember, anything you say can be used against you.

as if.... said...

"Aren't they trying to help the Democrats"

-Someone once said, "the worst thing for a socialist is to live in a socialist society in which they themselves are not 'in charge'".

California Snow said...

Alphabet (Google) has far more power than Facebook. Why does Zuck get all the heat and not Larry Page & Sergey Brin?

Sam L. said...

"The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?" Yes.

Krumhorn said...

I’m sure that so long as the lefties wave their break-up ax around, Facebook can be induced to ban certain noisy folks like Milo, Jones, and Loomer from the platform. Since Farrakhan is largely irrelevant these days, there is no cost to banning him too in a lame show of balance.

The key problem is that the lefties want no competition in the power game. They are nasty little shits who will go to any lengths to ensure that you can’t fight back.

- Krumhorn

wwww said...

"The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?"

Don't be naive. $$ is the bottom line at most corporations. Facebook will do what is best for the share price. Example: If sharing privacy information helps the bottom line, they will do it. If it hurts the bottom line, they will stop. Likewise with ads. Controlling information or bots costs $$. All corporations donate to all political parties they think might work to influence policy and legislation relating to their industry.

n.n said...

Find an alternative to Facebook, fritter your time away from Twitter, say goodbye to Yahoo, rearrange Alphabet to discover another spelling for Google, moderate your consumption of journolism, and leave the urbane jungle to uncover consistent etymologies for appropriated terms and phrases.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mark Zuckerberg is still pissed that he had to lift his ban from Diamond and Silk. Every day he is irked that a couple of Black women are allowed to support President Trump on Facebook.

Achilles said...

Blogger Mr. Majestyk said...
How could you divide a company like Facebook into two or more separate companies?

Separate Instagram and WhatsApp. Stop their anticompetitive practice of buying or copying competitors for instant messaging.

Separate news aggregation and social networking.

Limit the length and complexity of EULAs and make Facebook liable for 3rd party access to user information. Find out exactly what Facebook gave the Obama campaign in 2012.

If they are going to censor content make them liable for the content they allow.

rcocean said...

Zuckerprick wouldn't have so much power, if everyone didn't stupidly corral themselves on facebook. Dumbos are like "Hey I can use the whole internet but I like to spend 90% of my time on one website".

The whole point of the internet was CHOICE. But huge numbers of people don't want a choice, they want to use facebook.

gerry said...

DELETE YOUR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT NOW.

Thank you. Now back to regular commenting.

n.n said...

Be adventurous and explore climates outside of Amazon, keep the Net neutral and stop sharing the costs of Netflix and other broadband services, tear down the walls Ms. Pro-Choice, close the abortion chambers Planned Parenthood, stand for civil rights and emigration reform, and don't play monopoly with academia and education.

n.n said...

Medical and pharmaceutical too, which begins with abortion of Obamacare, the unwanted, inconvenient, unviable clump of policies.

Achilles said...

Google is obvious.
Search engine, android, google ads, AI/Machine learning services, and so many other divisions all need to be separate companies.

mccullough said...

How would breaking up Facebook work?

Assign users to different social media? So you can’t follow posts of your high school girlfriend anymore because she was assigned to a different social media platform?

Or is the government going to require users to be on all social media platforms? And you have to alternate posts between them. Tuesday evenings and Saturday mornings you will be required to go to Facebook but are prohibited from doing so at any other time.

Facebook doesn’t work like an oil company. You can’t break it up in any meaningful sense without regulating the users.

lgv said...

Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?

Yes. How are Warren and Klobuchar doing in the polls? Has Joe Biden called for the breakup of the tech giants? Doesn't he have a 31 point lead? Coincidence?



Bob Boyd said...

Nice little company you have there, Mark. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

Earnest Prole said...

In the event you hadn’t noticed, at this political moment the Democratic Party is engaged in a civil war between its Establishment and Woke wings that makes the Establishment-Trump rift in the Republican Party look like nuttin’.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

AA: "The political moment? Isn't Facebook trying to help the Democrats?"

Yes, but the larger Democrat goal is to aggregate Power to Government. Plus, it is just posturing and electioneering at this point; no actual legislation in the works.

Leave Zuckerberg alone and let the free market decide.

The real problem is an ill-informed electorate that is influenced by crap on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, who take without question the stuff on MSNBC, National Enquirer, and Breitbart (God love him). It is a problem at least as old as the Gracchi.

So Zuckerberg controls the voting rabble and thereby controls the Government. The best answer is to have less power in the Government. Alernatively, do not allow the rabble to vote.

Checking out a course on Great Courses Plus last night. The "Lecturer" was explaining about democracy of Classical Greece. "It's not like our democracy."

Hint to "Lecturer." We do not have a democracy. We have a republic.

tim in vermont said...

It’s the facebook users they are afraid of. “The problem with the internet is that it has no gatekeepers” - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

MadisonMan said...

Imagine if Zuckerberg were a Republican!!

Pianoman said...

If these companies were required by law to be politically neutral regarding deplatforming, it might not be necessary to break them up.

Aren't there laws already in place to prevent companies like AT&T from using someone's political views to determine whether they will provide services? In other words, Wells Fargo can't deny you a checking account because you voted for Trump, right?

Yancey Ward said...

Hughes real complaint is that Facebook isn't anti-conservative enough. His editorial is just a way to pressure Zuckerberg into being more pro-Democrat than he already is.

I am also of Richard Fagin's opinion- if there weren't such "voting shares", the public discipline of Facebook would probably lead to a more politically balanced company. As of right now, Zuckerberg is still quite pro-Democrat, and it is his voting shares that matter here.

Sigivald said...

I'd trust their complaints about "monopoly" more if I trusted them to not immediately say "The Government Should Run Social Media".

I do not trust them.

(And yeah, as mentioned above, the solution to "these meanies influence people who can then manipulate government power" is LESS GOVERNMENT POWER.

But people who view government power as a good in itself, or as something they need to wield to Fix Things [or worse, Fix Other People], well, can't contemplate that route.

Less power to the State undercuts a lot of bad incentives and feedback inputs.

A more cynical person might say that's why nobody much wants it.)

tim in vermont said...

He can never be forgiven for the Russian ads showing Hillary wrestling with Jesus that flipped the election.

Pianoman said...

@Sigivald: I'd certainly agree with that -- I don't want government running social media either.

But government doesn't "run" the phone companies either. They're not even public utilities. But as far as I know, they can't deny someone a phone because they believe in nutty conspiracies. In other words, Alex Jones hasn't been "deplatformed" from AT&T over his kooky views.

Why can't the same laws/principles apply to Facebook and Instagram and YouTube?

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

I think the user base of Facebook in the United States probably skews a bit right as of today, and it is why Facebook, of the big social media companies, is probably still the most balanced in the way it treats political content. The users FB in the US are older than the users of Twitter, and probably a bit more white. This is why you see someone like Chris Hughes trying to goad Zuckerberg into leaning more left.

John henry said...

Roy,

At Tim Poole's suggestion I signed up for minds.com a few days ago.

Manly to follow him. I've not posted anything yet.

I am johnrhenry there.

Also on mastadon to follow Thomas Wictor.

Never used Facebook and will not permit anyone to use it on any of my devices.

FB claims, or used to at least, the right to use/sell anything they find in your device whether or not it's been posted to Facebook

John Henry

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Who did his face? It looks almost real.

madAsHell said...

Chris Hughes ran The New Republic into the ground, and now he offers business advice??

Fen said...

Cato: The tech giants want regulation they can control - hence the calls now. Any antitrust litigation will be in the courts for decades while they continue their merry way, and in the interim they'll agree to regulations that make entry harder and solidify their positions: win for them, win for the Democrats. America and liberty are the losers.

I think you've nailed it. Facebook's true nemesis is The Next Facebook, in whatever form that takes. We've seen this gambit played out over and over again in Big Business - Megacorp agrees to government regulations that sting it company, but destroy the rising upstarts. Facebook has the power money and influence to weather new regulation, Joe and Bob working on prototypes in their basement do not.

I'm so old I remember when Google branded "Don't Be Evil". We must destroy them.

stlcdr said...

Blogger mccullough said...
How would breaking up Facebook work?

Take all the ones and zeroes and split them up into a bucket of ones and a bucket of zeroes. I don't think Facebook has anything else.

TrespassersW said...

Found you, JH.

JaimeRoberto said...

The media are upset with Facebook, because they believe that $100K of ads from Russia changed the election. If the Russians can do that for $100K, then why should campaigns spend billions on ads in traditional media?

TWW said...

Not an expert on antitrust law but how can Facebook be a monopoly from a strictly legal perspective when it provides a product/service to its customer for free?

John henry said...

Anyone signed up for Facebook needs to stfu.

You have agreed to whatever shitty treatment they provide you.

I have no fucks to give as the Kool Kidz say.

John Henry

Jim at said...

No need to break up Facebook. It's already losing its luster to other platforms.

Howard said...

Zuck is a Cuckservative

Earnest Prole said...

Not an expert on antitrust law but how can Facebook be a monopoly from a strictly legal perspective when it provides a product/service to its customer for free?

Facebook charges its customers for the data it harvests from users, also know as its crop.

Nichevo said...


Howard said...
Zuck is a Cuckservative

5/9/19, 3:10 PM

Vewwy good, Howwie! Baby steps.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Conservatives, by and large, do not understand how capitalism works. Libertarians even more so.
Zuckerberg controls a company whose value is entirely derived from government-granted monopolies, in this case IP rights.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Blogger TWW said...

Not an expert on antitrust law but how can Facebook be a monopoly from a strictly legal perspective when it provides a product/service to its customer for free?"

Facebook users are not its customers.
The people who pay for Facebook's products are its customers.

Saicy said...

I don't think that if the technological giants collapse, it will be good because new ones will appear over time, and this is inevitable. Such social networks are an integral part of our life. The only thing worth doing is to keep your kids safe online. My kids use kik often. And that's why I found how to spy on someones kik and now I'm calm about the safety of my children. After all, if some social networks stop working, others will appear.