
Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook - tysone
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html
======
loudmax
Better than breaking up social networks would be to force them to interoperate
on an open protocol. When I first signed up for Facebook I was disappointed
that only other Facebook users could see my account. Then when Google+ came on
the scene I thought they'd worked out a way to interoperate with Facebook, but
instead Google just wanted their own silo.

What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the way email from
different providers does. Same goes for chat and audio/video communication.
Rather than breaking up Facebook, mandate that they must provide access to
other social networks. Use an open protocol, say, Mastadon.

~~~
stickfigure
Are you suggesting that there be an API to access social network information?

That is _literally_ what Facebook had, and what people excoriate them over
thanks to Cambridge Analytica. The Facebook haters are driving social network
data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"?

You can have privacy (or at least the illusion of privacy), or you can have
access. You cannot have both.

~~~
tremon
This sounds to me like a backwards argument. The Cambridge Analytica scandal
revolved around _unsanctioned_ access to data. I don't think the premise of
having an API was the problem, it was the lack of transparency and control
offered to Facebook's users.

~~~
stickfigure
_unsanctioned access to data_

You misunderstand what happened. 1) Users installed a quiz app, 2) _Users
explicitly accepted a permission dialog that included "information about your
friends"_, 3) The quiz app saved this data, 4) Cambridge Analytica bought the
app (and data).

If CA got your data, it's because one of your friends sanctioned the critical
link in this chain.

Facebook at least provided this level of security, however illusory it may
have been. In a decentralized system, anyone who touches a piece of data can
pass it on to whoever they want. There is no way to enforce "my friends can
look at my data but it's my data and they aren't allowed to pass it on".

Privacy advocates and decentralization advocates are mortal enemies; their
only common cause is that it's popular to hate on Facebook these days.

~~~
hhjinks
How is that not unsanctioned access? I can't get a mortgage in your name just
because we're friends.

~~~
filoleg
Correct, but your friends are more than capable of backing up their log of
emails with you and handing it over to someone else. How is it not your
friend’s fault?

And CA “leak” was way more tame than this, just the information displayed on
your profile for all of your friends.

------
decasteve
I disagree. But I'm not on any, nor use any, of Facebook's services. "It's
Time to Break Up _with_ Facebook" is a better title.

> We already have the tools we need to check the domination of Facebook. We
> just seem to have forgotten about them.

That evokes different ideas with me and I'm sure it does for many users of
this site. We have the tools and capability to employ them to make
alternatives. We're so focused on the dominance that we ignore the
possibility.

> Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.

This is incredibly naive. I haven't gone down the logical path to play this
scenario out but my gut tells me that the hand that the government will force
will be short-sighted and attack the symptom. The results may be worse.

~~~
uptown
You may not be on Facebook but you can bet your friends or family have shared
your contact info with them. And even if that exposure is limited, you can bet
they’ve got a shadow profile of you.

~~~
zaroth
Facebook’s shadow profile of me does not even begin to hold a candle to
Google’s shadow profile of me.

And Google has been monetizing that profile for a lot longer than Facebook
has.

~~~
bjz_
So while we're at it we should look at breaking up Google as well.

~~~
bluGill
I only use google for youtube and cloud print. I'd like to break up with the
latter but I haven't figured out how (history says google will force this in
the near future). YouTube has a lot of great content (mixed in with even more
worthless garbage) that isn't elsewhere, so I can't figure out how I'd break
up with it.

~~~
chupasaurus
On the other side, Google is tracking you on a lot of sites unless you use
measures to counter it.

~~~
bluGill
True. I wish there was a good way to stop that.

~~~
411mrc
A custom router can do this for all devices on your network. That is what I
use.

~~~
chupasaurus
Do you carry your router with you all the time to provide a bridge to mobile
networks?

------
basetop
Why just facebook? Why not Amazon, Google, JPM, Disney, etc?

"Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, says the company is so big and
powerful that it threatens our democracy."

"threatens our democracy". I've heard this talking point so much that it has
no meaning any longer. It's just another of the oft-repeated talking point
created by PR firms as part of a propaganda campaign.

If facebook is truly that powerful that it "threatens our democracy", then it
doesn't say much of our democracy does it? I'd say the people attacking the
constitution and our rights are the real "threats to our democracy". Facebook
is far down on the list of "threats to our democracy". I consider censorship,
money in politics, the congressional-industrial-military complex, the
israeli/saudi/chinese/etc influence in our economic, media and government
institutions, globalism, etc to be far greater threats to democracy than
facebook. If facebook was truly as powerful as he says, the establishment and
their media wouldn't be attacking facebook as vigorously as they have been.
Lets be honest.

If Chris Hughes, "co-founder" of Facebook truly feels this way, why doesn't he
just created a competitor to facebook. It isn't that difficult to create a
social media platform. Though it may be difficult to get users.

~~~
koheripbal
Google in particular. What makes a monopoly dangerous is when they control
multiple links in the supply chain to push out competitors.

If Google owns Search, Gmail, Android, Analytics, Chat, Google Fi, Google
Fiber, Chrome, GPay, etc... then they are able leverage one monopoly to
establish monopolies elsewhere.

...and that is ultimately what is most destructive to Competition and consumer
value. All of the above could be separate companies. Facebook gets a lot of
bad press, but Google is the big danger.

~~~
physicsyogi
> If Google owns Search, Gmail, Android, Analytics, Chat, Google Fi, Google
> Fiber, Chrome, GPay, etc... then they are able leverage one monopoly to
> establish monopolies elsewhere.

You're right that Google leverages its portfolio of services to get a foothold
in other ventures, but not one of those listed above is a monopoly. There are
solid and well-performing alternatives/competitors to nearly all of Google's
services. Their (and Facebook's) online advertising business is another story.

------
Nextgrid
It’s time to outlaw stalking-based business models. If you just break up
Facebook but don’t outlaw the underlying scummy business model something else
will just take its place.

~~~
saintPirelli
I don't think it's possible to outlaw what Facebook does without unforeseen
consequences. Facebook is fast-food for the mind. You know it's bad for you,
you know you shouldn't do it, you know there are healthier alternatives, the
fact that corporations profit off of making people fat and sick is outrageous,
but you can't very well outlaw the concept of beef in a bun.

~~~
panglott
People aren't mad because Facebook runs a social network or presents users
with a newsfeed or provides a messaging service or stores users photos. Lots
of companies do those things without complaint. People are mad at Facebook
because the company constantly lies about privacy issues, makes one agreement
with its users about their privacy and then does something else, and just
generally treats the privacy of its users with complete contempt.

~~~
saintPirelli
People aren't mad because MacDonalds runs a chain of restaurants or presents
consumers with food or provides a easy way to get a meal. Lots of companies do
those things without complaint. People are mad at McDonalds because the
company constantly lies about health issues, makes one statement about the
origins of their food when really it comes from somewhere else, and just
generally treats the concerns of its consumers with complete contempt.

~~~
panglott
have never been more on board with breaking up McDonald's. ;)

------
HNthrow22
FB is the sacrificial lamb, popular scapegoat and effective distraction in
this new era of SV policies shaping public opinion, ideas and as a result
global politics. It seems misplaced, the amount of vitriol and negative press
directed at facebook when from my perspective Google/Twitter/Amazon and even
Reddit are far, far worse in terms of aggressively monopolistic behavior and
negative effects on society and democracy. The fallout and effects of these
platforms unparalleled power and influence is not well-researched yet. The key
part that strikes me as disingenuous if these outlets and politicians who
fling so much mud towards FB cared so much about privacy violations where were
the billion dollar fines and string of hit pieces on Equifax (Who also collect
and store your info without your consent)? The answer is there weren't any
because they don't, and this is just a distraction from the real shit.

~~~
solipsism
If you believe it, say it from your real account.

This ubiquitous practice of commenting on contentious topics using throwaways
reveals much of that's wrong with HN culture.

~~~
Scene_Cast2
The grandparent comment was insightful to me.

At the same time, there is a large (20%-80%), vocal, and powerful fraction of
tech employees that strongly and idealistically oppose that "SV policies [are]
shaping public opinion", or that it's a potentially bad thing and not
something we should strive for.

I see why someone would hesitate making that comment from their primary
account.

------
3jckd
One one hand side, I agree that Facebook/Amazon/Apple etc. but also many
telcoms are way too big which in turn stifles fair competition and leads to
monopolies (and subsequently abuse of power, lobbying etc). On the other,
there has not been one good solution proposed to this so far.

Let's run through the options (accumulated over months or years of
discussions): 1) Split FB into the FB-Instagram-WhatsApp trio that we used to
have in the past. Neat but the main culprit remains the same. 2) Remove Zuck
or at least reduce his voting power s.t. the board has more. This would work
if we assume that Zuck is the main issue with FB, which I doubt he is.
Investors would always push for more money and if it means more of the same
privacy-violating, advertising-driven social media, I doubt they would change
it - money hardly ever has a moral compass of any kind. 3) Kind of like 2 but
on top of this, you fix some members of the board with community/government
selected representatives which would be supposed to balance out things and/or
at least raise concerns. 4) Introduce point 3 as a general rule - if a company
reaches X% of the given industry's estimated total market value, it has to
give up some board seats. In theory, forces companies to stay focused instead
of spreading into every single adjacent industry.

Now, all of these have problems of their own (corruption in case of 3-4,
anyone?) but the sooner the discussion starts the better.
Google/Amazon/Microsoft/Apple/chip makers are next in line but also, as
another commenter pointed out - we do want to see people build strong and
prosperous companies that truly innovate.

Damn, it's a non-trivial topic, just writing this down brings more questions
than answers

~~~
blululu
Agreed that the solutions proposed thus far do nothing to address the
problems. Even if we tore the company apart brick by brick there are no
guarantees that we wouldn't have the exact same problems resurface in 5 years
under a different company. Prehaps we should focus about ways to increase the
transparency and accountability of any Media/Telecom platform.

------
anonu
I agree to breaking up Facebook. But the message falls flat when the
suggestion is to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram into separate companies. This
doesn't really do anything.

When standard oil or Bell telephone broke up, they were broken across
geographic lines or "horizontally" in situations where the business was
vertically integrated (separating extraction, refining or transport in the
case of standard oil)

FB, IG and WhatsApp are all separate companies with arguably very different
business models, so separating them up has little impact.

~~~
istjohn
I disagree. Many people have moved away from FB to IG after all the bad
publicity FB has had. If IG was an independent company that consumer choice
would mean something. As it is, any privacy conscious social network that
mounts any threat to FB will simply be bought as happened with WhatsApp.

~~~
basch
IG was like a 13 person company, do you think they would have successfully
scaled without FB? Thats a pretty pretty big if. Had they not sold, its
possible FB would have just murdered them.

~~~
reanimated
Before being acquired by Facebook they already had over 30 million users

------
mindgam3
Chris Hughes noticeably pulled a few punches regarding his old friend Zuck’s
character:

1\. “I don’t blame Mark for his quest for domination. He has demonstrated
nothing more nefarious than the virtuous hustle of a talented entrepreneur.”

2\. “I don’t think these proposals [Zuck finally asking for regulation] were
made in bad faith.”

It’s pretty naïve at this point to say that Zuckerberg has done nothing more
than a “virtuous hustle”.

And Zuck asking for weak regulation is such an obvious ploy to stave off
stronger action like a breakup that would threaten dominance.

Having made those nitpicks, this is a fairly bombshell article for someone so
early at FB to come out swinging.

You can expect more power players to take up this cause in the next quarter or
two as early execs start waking up from what basically amounts to Facebook
brainwashing.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>And Zuck asking for weak regulation is such an obvious ploy to stave off
stronger action like a breakup that would threaten dominance.

Regulation can often help incumbent businesses by raising the barrier to entry
for competition, which allows higher monopoly rents.

~~~
mindgam3
Fair point.

Also I just LOLed after reading the NYT editorial board reaction to this piece
- apparently we disagree on whether any punches were pulled. The first line:

“Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, pulls no punches in his essay for The
Times Privacy Project...”

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-
face...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-
facebook.html)

------
panglott
The whole business model of Silicon Valley is finding companies that can grow
to become abusive monopolies, and then growing them into that. Cut off one
head and two will take its place.

~~~
thrav
In fact, Facebook’s first investor wrote the book on this idea.

~~~
yagamilighto
What's the name of the book?

~~~
mcast
Zero to One

------
drngdds
>But there is no constitutional right to harass others or live-stream
violence.

Pretty sure the Supreme Court would disagree with you on that one, bud. They
aren't fond of adding new categories of unprotected speech. See Trope #3 in
this article: [https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-
critique-...](https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-
censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/)

~~~
davemp
The trope "But there is no constitutional right to [blah]" is blatantly
ignoring the 9th amendment. [1]

[1]: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-
conan/amendment-9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9)

------
umeshunni
Maybe we should have a sticky article at the top of HN for NYTimes' weekly
Facebook bashing opinion piece?

~~~
martythemaniak
If we do that for every company/person bashing topic, we'll quickly run out of
room on the front page.

------
josh2600
I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google.
Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook?

~~~
ardy42
> I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google.
> Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook?

The article _does not_ argue against breaking up Google, in fact it says:

> Finally, an aggressive case against Facebook would persuade other behemoths
> like Google and Amazon to think twice about stifling competition in their
> own sectors, out of fear that they could be next.

It's basically saying _Google 's next_ if it doesn't mend its ways.

~~~
dominotw
> It's basically saying Google's next

I don't think that answers GP's question though,

why is facebook first?

Why is facebook the chosen one. Surely it wasn't chosen using random number
generator.

~~~
ardy42
> why is facebook first?

> Why is facebook the chosen one. Surely it wasn't chosen using random number
> generator.

It's it obvious? It's been _far_ more _transparently_ shameless.

> I don't think that answers GP's question though,

It does. The op was asking a why/why not question. He didn't even mention the
concept of sequence.

~~~
josh2600
I was musing philosophically. I know why Facebook is first and google isn’t on
the chopping block. It’s because people don’t have the same relationship with
google. No one is accusing google of colluding with foreign powers to sabotage
democracy. It’s funny, right? If google had the best ad targeting during 2016,
they would be on the crucifix right now just like Facebook, but they didn’t
(maybe you can argue google ads aren’t as useful or as visceral as fb ads, but
I think it’s complicated). You might argue that google wouldn’t work with the
Russians, but that’s not obvious to me that Facebook did that intentionally
either.

There but for fortune.

------
ekianjo
Funny, what do you have to break up something that you are not even forced to
use, and that is not even remotely necessary for benefiting from the internet?
I must be missing something.

~~~
kerkeslager
Well, increasingly, you _are_ forced to use Facebook.

I went through the arduous process of deleting my Facebook account about 8
years ago. 2 years ago, I started doing freelance software development, and at
some point almost every one of my clients has wanted me to implement a
Facebook login. I could say no, but then I'm likely losing my livelihood. And
in order to implement Facebook logins, you need a Facebook account (to
administrate and view documentation).

My girlfriend cleans up estates, meaning that when someone dies, she helps the
family of the deceased clean up the deceased's house. A lot of that involves
selling their stuff, for which she splits the profits with the heirs. It used
to be that Craigslist was the best place to sell stuff, but increasingly it's
much harder to sell stuff on Craigslist, and easier to sell on Facebook
marketplace. And again, to buy/sell there, you really need a Facebook account.
She also does other odd jobs, and again, most of these are found through
Facebook.

Maybe Facebook isn't necessary for the ways _you_ benefit from the internet,
but your experience isn't everyone's.

~~~
mrfusion
How is marketplace better than craigslist?

~~~
kerkeslager
More people using it, more of those people willing to buy.

------
uptown
“If we don’t have public servants shaping these policies, corporations will.”

I fear that in the current environment where money largely drives politics
that corporations will just shift from directly making policy to funding the
politicians who will do-so on their behalf.

~~~
vermilingua
Well... this is how they currently make policy. There aren’t literally
corporations writing law.

~~~
montalbano
In some cases corporations literally do write the law:

[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/03...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/03/public-
right-know-model-bill-alec-school-vouchers-lobbyists/3332772002/)

[https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed](https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed)

------
Calib3r
Chris Hughes is right on a lot of things.

But to create a new Federal Agency that can write blank-check laws is not a
good idea.

What ever happened to the Schoolhouse rock song "I'm just a bill?" What
happened to laws being written through approval of house and congress?

We are pushing for laws to be written by people who do not have the citizen in
mind (FCC killed Net Neutrality ring a bell?). Why is it so crazy to expect
the House and Congress to do their diligence and vet all laws? Why must we
create federal entities to do the heavy lifting for us at the cost of removing
representation?

------
lefstathiou
I found this piece very unconvincing. Where is the articulate and data
supported argument that our democracy is under threat? Are people no longer
voting? No, they are voting in droves. People of all ages are more politically
charged than ever before. I’m seeing 10 year olds engaging in our democracy.

To me it is becoming increasingly apparent that the issue here is that people
aren’t voting for the issues the NYT and Chris want people to vote on. That
doesn’t qualify as a threat to democracy. They don’t understand these voters
or their values and the assumption at NYT is that they are morons who are
clicking on fake news links on Facebook. An entire case is being made without
data to support it.

I get that Trump got elected and nobody at the NYT is happy about it. Time to
move on imo.

~~~
noarchy
>To me it is becoming increasingly apparent that the issue here is that people
aren’t voting for the issues the NYT and Chris want people to vote on.

While you're getting downvoted, there is likely an element of truth to this.
The "old" media has seen entities like Twitter and Facebook as a threat to
their business model, as well as their ability to be influencers. There are
legitimate gripes that we should all have with Facebook and their ilk, but I
am sure the NYT is motivated by more than just concern for the public good.

~~~
lefstathiou
I’ve spent 12 years on HN and have read countless threads from users I’ve
followed for many years.

This up/down voting mechanism is just another system of censorship and it has
gotten worse on HN and you see the restraint exercised in comments. Anyone can
spot articles that are “safe” to comment on and articles that are not (from
the perspective of sharing views that do not jive with the HN majority and
being downvoted into oblivion). I made a conscience decision not to let that
bother or deter me. I try to balance that with my attempt to not troll and try
to be constructive if a choose to post.

The bias that NYT has here to destroy Facebook is evident to anyone who takes
a moment to think about it. Their entire business model has been upended
because they no longer control distribution, FB does. How can we form
thoughtful / well balanced opinions based on these one-sided pieces? We can’t.
Alas, who cares.

~~~
mrep
I couldn't have stated it better myself. It's especially ridiculous
considering everyone claims they hate censorship so much and yet I see people
abusing flags nowadays to auto-hide perfectly constructive comments just
because they don't like what the other person said.

------
polskibus
While you're at it, do the same for GOOG, AMZN and MSFT to avoid unbalancing
the market and strengthening other tech behemoths. They could easily step in
FB role.

------
patwolf
"Mark Zuckerberg is a good guy. But his company is a threat to our economy and
democracy."

"Mark is a good, kind person. But I’m angry that his focus on growth led him
to sacrifice security and civility for clicks."

I always find it difficult to take an argument seriously when someone is
defined simply as "good". It glosses over a lot of things, like what motivates
a person and how we define "good". For example, if we can agree that
Facebook's privacy issues are bad, and that Mark was directly responsible for
them, then it seems that either

a) Mark selfishly disregards privacy for the growth of the company. (bad)

b) Mark does care about privacy, but if he doesn't grow the company, he'll be
forced out and someone less good will take the helm. (good)

c) Mark thinks that all the good Facebook does outweighs the negatives, and
therefore the sacrifice of privacy is a net positive. (good)

For reference, that first quote is taken from the NYT front page summary, and
the second from the body of the editorial.

~~~
mathgeek
"X is a good person, but ..." is simply something that a lot of people have
been taught to do when they want to criticize someone but don't want to appear
to be entirely negative (without necessarily having anything nice to say about
the person). It's a common strategy to try to come off as more polite,
especially when your statement is written or will be quoted.

A common aphorism that approximates this is "you catch more flies with sugar."

~~~
c0vfefe
Right, it's less a serious moral evaluation and more a rhetorical device to
appease his supporters long enough to continue reading his argument.

------
thallavajhula
While I agree with most of what Chris has said in the video (& the article),
it's hard for me to consider his intentions as purely objective.

Chris Hughes has always been a democrat and has been part of Obama campaign
and endorsed Hillary. Democrat leaders blame Facebook for how much it has
contributed to their loss in the 2016 elections. To me, all of this makes
sense. But, Chris being on the side of the democrats and coming up with these
points, IMHO, makes it less objective. This also seems like a good time to
come up with something like this, especially, when the candidates from both
the wings have begun campaigning for 2020.

------
manigandham
Ironic and hilarious how many ex-Facebook employees call for changes while
greatly enjoying the wealth they've received from it. Talk is cheap. When are
they going to do anything other than write op-eds?

------
username223
> I don’t blame Mark for his quest for domination. He has demonstrated nothing
> more nefarious than the virtuous hustle of a talented entrepreneur.

What a strange juxtaposition. It would be a shame if "entrepreneur" now only
refers to the VC dream of either domination or flaming death. There are many
trajectories in between.

Zuckerberg's focus on "domination" in the company's early days, added to his
famous "dumb f __*s " comment, makes me even more certain that Facebook was
rotten from the beginning.

------
mensetmanusman
The real problem is that too many people who didn’t have a voice before can
leverage centralized platforms to spread their views to too many people
(according to the NYT).

The internet has accelerated winner-take-all dynamics for good and bad.

The day will come when there will be no local news covering high school sports
events or community activities. People will rely on viewing participant posts
on social media. What’s lost here is that it is so easy to game the system and
spread BS...

------
stvswn
This is Chris Hughes trading on the only credibility he has left, which is
that he participated in Facebook as an undergad and Harvard (but never quit
school to pursue it full-time), amd by virtue of luck and his early
contributions gets the status as "Facebook cofounder." His real ambition has
been to become a figure in liberal politics. He bought _The New Republic_ as a
vanity project and drove it into the ground in two years. He and his husband
moved to NY so that his husband could run for office in a purple district, he
lost in a landslide (in a winnable district, too).

It's popular in liberal circles to blame Facebook for Trump, and so punishing
them has become a cause celebre, but it will pass.

------
TheRealDunkirk
I got 2 words for you: regulatory capture. There's literally no chance that a
guy who got invited to Bilderberg is going to have his company broken up
(unless that were to somehow work to his advantage). He's made deals with the
people that run the world. They won't touch him or his company.

------
kmlx
“Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, says the company is so big and
powerful that it threatens our democracy.”

considering how flawed democracies are, i say let democracy die. adopt
democracy 2.0 (no parties, no president/pm, no cabinet ministers, elected
speaker, continuous citizen participation) and that’s that.

~~~
adrianN
I'm against direct democracy because I don't have the expertise or the time to
make informed decisions about everything my government is currently doing for
me. Direct democracy will likely devolve into a reign of demagogues imho.

~~~
Yetanfou
The Swiss might have something to say on this, living in one of the most
stable and prosperous countries in the world which happens to be governed
under something _resembling_ direct democracy.

~~~
sithadmin
It's also fairly homogenous in terms of ethnic and socioeconomic demographics.
It's a lot easier to have direct democracy when factors like this are limiting
the presence of non-overlapping interest and ideologies.

------
blunderkid
Useless idea. Social networks esp FB should come with a statutory warning:
Excessive vanity can cause permanent brain damage leading to a dysfunctional
real life with real friends/family who may actually give 2 fux about you.

------
ycombonator
Deleted Facebook a month ago. Didnt seem to miss anything. Still share
pictures and memes and statuses on iMessage with friends relatives. And those
that are not on ios using whatsapp by holding the nose. Didnt miss a thing.

------
driven20
The problem with breaking up Facebook or any big US tech companies, is giving
China tech companies a huge advantage. Tech is global market/competitive
space.

------
anticensor
It is time to tear the Face Book down.

------
paulcole
Common rich person move. Something only becomes unethical and awful _after_
you get rich off it.

------
naveen99
advertisers and web masters wanting analytics can get together and share
cookies on users they want to track weather Facebook or google enable them or
not.

------
jmastrangelo
While we're discussing Facebook and anticompetitive practices, I'd like to
bring the effects of FANG/Unicorns and their current compensation.

I think we are seeing a drop in people leaving established tech to startups,
but I think most of this is due to the _ludicrous_ amount of money an
engineer/PM can make being a 9-5er at one FB/G. Engineers who meet
expectations and get promoted at the minimum allowed rate can be an E5
engineer at facebook within 5 years of graduation where there's a median
income of ~$300k. Engineers who are good can get promoted much faster/further
than that and make absurd amounts of money. With Level 1 directors at FB
making over a $1M a year.

It really doesn't make sense for an individual engineer to ever join a small
startup nowadays. Being the founder of a successful startup now still makes
sense, but considering that much of the low-hanging fruit of the
mobile/internet era has been picked, I think being a founder requires more
domain/technological expertise than it did in the era when our current
unicorns were born.

I like the state of things as someone making good money relatively stress free
at a FANG, but I hope a new fundamental technology wave comes soon and creates
opportunity for a whole new set of companies, reigniting the startup scene's
energy.

~~~
hodgesrm
It's not clear that many of the people you are describing would have joined a
startup anyway. There's big difference in the personalities who thrive in
startups and those that thrive in large bureaucracies. An alternative view is
that Silicon Valley and other tech centers are increasing dominated by the
latter type of person.

~~~
codr7
I'd go further and note that online software discussions in general seem
increasingly dominated by complete beginners who couldn't care less about code
except as a stepping stone to money and fame.

How this is all going to lead anywhere worth going is anyone's guess...

~~~
jmastrangelo
I think the change will have two effects. The first is the cynical one, where
tons of unqualified people come into the field just for the money, write poor
software, and probably don't actually enjoy their lives that much because
they're not good at what they do and lack that internal satisfaction.

But, a more positive change is that there will be some high-impact
multitalented genius individuals that choose to pursue tech instead of high
finance or politics or something like that. Jeff Bezos left a hedge fund to
start Amazon. Now he may be a ruthless son-of-a-bitch when it comes to
competing, but for consumers the positive impact has been enormous. He's
likely done far more good than he would have being a lifer at D.E. Shaw.

------
eternalban
No, Google first. NYTimes is throwing the sacrificial Facebook under the bus
to save the real systemic surveillance menace to the future generations.

~~~
ekianjo
Even if you break Google up it won't really change anything (i.e. it won't
stop wide tracking of users online).

------
jondubois
Why is this article not being upvoted more? It's probably the most important
piece that has ever been posted to HN; especially considering who the author
is.

~~~
erwan
I don't know for others but personally, I think it's pure hysteria and
scapegoating. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. I don't think private
property should be forcibly removed away because it is the current news cycle
ennemy-of-the-day. The standards for overruling consent should be extremely
high - if they should exist at all.

I got fed up with Facebook a while ago and deleted my account. No problem. If
Facebook has influence it is because people voluntarily chose to give it to
them.

~~~
Jommi
You are really not missing the forest for the trees. Facebook has grown so
large that it's no longer an individual's decision to be there or not.

Your data is there whatever you do, growing as a phantom profile based on data
you give to advertisers or what your friends share. It's become such a huge
power that it's a huge part of social life. It influences our society in ways
we coulndt even imagine before.

~~~
stvswn
This is insane. No, you don't have to use it. You can reset cookies and device
identifiers whenever you want if you don't want "phantom profiles."

~~~
Jommi
We're at a point where you are massively crippled from the rest of society if
you do not use it.

There are so many uses that I just cannot afford to not be on the platform.

------
Radle
I think it would be enough to ban Zuckerberg from running any public corp in
his lifetime.

The Facebook problems are all Mark Zuckerberg problems, it starts with the
people he pics for management the priority he sets for a business which
provides an important part of american infrastructure.

Zuckerberg as CEO of Facebook is the same for the USA as putting a teenager in
control of the United States Department of Energy.

~~~
foobarbecue
I think I'd rather have a teenager than a guy who couldn't even remember its
name when he tried to list it as one of three agencies he'd demolish.
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DYN8uFJz9gTk&ved=2ahUKEwjQ-Z7Rp47iAhXJhFQKHX_YA18QwqsBMAB6BAgHEAU&usg=AOvVaw1janTSlmUJgw03tSF1C_27)

