
Facebook Can’t Be Fixed, It Needs to Be Broken Up - dsr12
https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-cant-be-fixed-it-needs-to-be-broken-up
======
paxys
Broken up into what exactly? If you don't like Facebook don't use it. How
about the Senate and the internet outrage machine spend time on companies like
Equifax instead, who (1) we literally cannot opt out of, (2) have private data
that we didn't choose to share with them, and (3) have broken actual laws but
haven't received as much as a slap on the wrist for it.

~~~
a1a
Firstly, it is not possible to opt out of facebook. [1] And they do indeed
collect private data that we didn't choose to share (shadow accounts, third
party website trackers, etc).

Facebook have broken "actual laws". There are so many cases were facebook have
broken the law. [2] [3]

Also, please read up on Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as").

[1] [https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-
profiling.html](https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.html)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook-
personal-data-privacy-settings-ruled-illegal-german-court)

[3] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/facebooks-tracking-of-
non-...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/facebooks-tracking-of-non-users-
ruled-illegal-again/)

~~~
thejerz
Regarding [1], it _is_ possible to opt out of facebook: don't visit websites
with Facebook like/share buttons. (This website, for example). When you access
a website with facebook tracking installed, you are consenting to being
tracked.

~~~
zaarn
I did not consent to being tracked by facebook.

Yet websites try again and again to load the facebook like button.

As per GDPR, which is in effect but not enforced until May, tracking me
without _explicitly and clearly asking me if that is okay_ is not allowed and
anything else, like withdrawing service until I agree to be tracked, does not
construct consent.

When I visit a new website I do not know if they have facebook like buttons. I
have to load the page to check that and without a script or ad blocker I will
also load the like button and facebook will track that.

At which point in that process did I consent to any and all scripts on that
webpage leeching of my personal data?

~~~
dingaling
> Yet websites try again and again to load the facebook like button.

Take that up with the websites, not Facebook.

Vast numbers of websites use Google Web Fonts which enables Google to track
users. I didn't opt in to that so I just block it.

~~~
zaarn
Yes but technically less inclined users won't block and don't consent to it
either.

Visiting a website is not consent for tracking.

------
downer61
This is basically the worst possible course of action. Facebook is neither a
utility nor monopoly. Facebook will be irrelevant in a generation or less.
Even if Facebook manages to leverage the network effect of its alternative
subsidiaries, there will always be the treadmill of evolving trends, and
there’s not such thing as one true mode of electronic social interaction.

~~~
unicornporn
> Facebook will be irrelevant in a generation or less.

A lot of harm can be done in one generation. Don't you think the history shows
us that?

~~~
apotheothesomai
What history teaches us is that past generations have been ruined by serious
things, like war, political upheaval, disease, and economic collapse, not by a
frivolity in their social lives like FB.

Modern marketing has ensured that everyone in the US born after the'80s has
grown up in an environment of marketing saturation, but modern
marketing/propaganda was invented in the early 20th century. (Thanks, Edward
Bernays) It changed our lives and the way we think, from Fascist propaganda to
Coldwar rhetoric, and to the belief that orange juice is a breakfast drink and
the engagement ring is a thing.

FB is one of thousands of powerful entities continuing the tradition, but of
course, data mining has reached obscene levels, but FB is only one of many
players.

~~~
sgtmas2006
While they're only one of many players, they are a big player, and from
experience it's mostly boomers that use Facebook. They have a lot of power,
but I do not think they should be broken up. Things have been allowed to be
this way, and I doubt they will change for the better.

------
MediumD
I don't see how breaking up Facebook changes the fact that companies are
financially incentivized to track and sell as much information on their
customers as possible. Whether a monopoly or a collection of small companies,
people follow incentives.

~~~
mlb_hn
That and one can't help notice the irony that on all these articles they're
still trying to load the Facebook trackers in addition to the others (not to
beat a dead horse).

~~~
Lionsion
> That and one can't help notice the irony that on all these articles they're
> still trying to load the Facebook trackers in addition to the others

There's no irony here, just the fact that the author doesn't manage or control
the website team that put the trackers there.

------
robotresearcher
There is a very simple alternative to Facebook: don’t use Facebook. That’s the
competition. There is nothing quite the same but there are lots of other
things to do online.

~~~
tyingq
There is a strong draw for many of us. It's the only reasonable way I have to
see pictures and updates from my family that's pretty far flung across the
world. Convincing all my kids, grandkids, siblings, cousins, in laws, nieces,
nephews, etc to move away from FB isn't really practical. I do use FB mostly
read only, but there isn't really a way for me to leave.

~~~
thejerz
> but there isn't really a way for me to leave.

You speak as if you have no agency in the situation. But, you _do_ have
agency. Using, or not using, facebook is 100%, entirely your _choice_. There
was a happy (happier?) world before 2005, where families shared photos and
stayed in touch, without Mark Zuckerberg.

~~~
tyingq
Yes, I have the agency to lose touch with people I care about, because it's
not practical for me to convince them all to use a different medium. It is the
FB moat. It's real.

~~~
hailk
So people who don't use facebook aren't in touch with people they care about?
There is no moat, only an FB blindfold. It's just a product. If it's not
serving you well, drop it. Better ones will arrive faster than we blink.

~~~
tyingq
That's just so black and white. I could muster an effort and get some of what
I get from FB via other angles, sure. And yes, there are some relatives that
aren't on FB, but for me, that's the exception, not the rule.

But it is just so naive to assume I wouldn't miss out on notable pictures and
news of people I love by opting out. Facebook does have some value. We're not
just purely idiots. We get the trade-off. Hard opting out would have real
downsides for me.

------
Mononokay
That's the least rational thing I've ever seen. Look at what happened to Bell.
Forced corporate breakups are the _dumbest_ thing possible.

~~~
gibybo
What would be a better way to deal with monopolies?

Surely the breakup of Bell is better than if they were allowed to continue as
a monopoly right?

~~~
Mononokay
Not at all, actually! Ever heard of Verizon, AT&T, and Centurylink? All of
them came from the Bell breakup. Bell used to do things that were _cool as
fuck_ ; post-breakup, prices rose for everyone, and innovation stopped really
happening.

Monopolies aren't inherently bad - especially not ones like Bell, where
they're beneficial to everyone.

~~~
tyingq
>post-breakup, prices rose for everyone

Any citations for this? The rise of MCI cut my phone bills by more than half
in the 80's. Bell was killing us with 3 figure/month residential phone bills.
And, I pay 10x less now per month in non inflation adjusted dollars than I did
in 1986.

Out of state calls back then were commonly double digit cents per minute. Now
they are typically 1 cent per minute or even less.

~~~
bartart
It was actually an issue after the breakup because the successor companies
started making much more money as a group than they did when they were
together.

They did all sorts of creative accounting to make it look like the breakup was
a big success that led to lower profits, when in reality cutting bloated
bureaucracy and the R&D budget led to really bumper profits.

~~~
tyingq
Hmm. Maybe more overall minutes/calls due to the lower cost? I know for sure
my phone bills got cut in half when I switched to MCI. I didn't call or talk
more often, just paid less.

Maybe others paid more than before, but enjoyed the additional minutes.

------
twblalock
Back in the 90s people thought Microsoft was too dominant, could not be fixed,
and needed to be broken up. It turns out they were wrong, because competition
from companies and technologies nobody saw coming knocked Microsoft off its
pedestal.

Few would have predicted the dominance of Facebook back in 2004. And few will
predict the next big thing that will break Facebook's dominance.

All this talk about the government breaking up Facebook is likely just as
short-sighted as the talk about the government breaking up Microsoft in the
90s.

~~~
paxys
I really don't understand the line of thinking that starts with "Facebook is
broken" and immediately goes to "Congress should fix it".

------
dingo_bat
Let's break up Google too while we are at it. They exert far too much
influence via Google search and YouTube and Android.

~~~
Slansitartop
I agree. The momentum seems to be focused on Facebook mainly because they
played it _too_ fast and loose for too long. But many of the issues that apply
to Facebook apply to Google as well, but it just hasn't provided as much
reason for this level of scrutiny.

------
xbmcuser
My only problem with Facebook is that it was allowed to purchase Whatsapp and
Instagram it's future competitors. I was glad Snapchat did not sell to
Facebook. Personally I only use WhatsApp of these 4 as it is something I can't
do without for work.

------
panarky
A good first step would be to force Facebook to let users easily take out
their data in machine-readable form, including their social graph, posts and
media.

~~~
partiallypro
They have done that voluntarily for years. It's under your settings. One thing
they don't currently allow is a complete and utter, real, deletion of your
profile and all of its assets. You can delete your account, but it's more or
less just held in a suspended state.

~~~
Lionsion
> A good first step would be to force Facebook to let users easily take out
> their data in machine-readable form, including their social graph, posts and
> media.

> They have done that voluntarily for years. It's under your settings.

Only kinda sorta. I exported my data and the photos were clearly lower-res
versions from the ones that are currently live on my profile. Also I doubt the
export contains _all_ the data they have linked to you, as I bet they have far
more from their tracking, analytics, and shadow profiles that they won't
export.

------
rejschaap
Nobody mentioned the FTC yet, but haven't they failed in a big way regarding
Facebook? They allowed them to buy Whatsapp, Instagram, tbh. There is no
competition because Facebook buys them before they get dangerous.

------
ravenstine
Facebook is already dying. Why even bother?

~~~
manigandham
Dying by which metric exactly? The billions in USD profit or the billions of
monthly active users?

~~~
return1
but newspapers say it is dying , so it must be dying. And that's just a taste
of what 'objective' news means.

~~~
ravenstine
Yes, it's because newspapers are telling me it's dying. Right. Newspapers. I
don't know if you mean newspapers in a literal sense, but if you do, well,
nobody except my parents reads those anymore. ;)

Profit and number of users are not good metrics for the future of a platform.
Facebook the company probably isn't going to die, but Facebook the platform
can and will inevitably become a ghost town in short order, just as all its
predecessors.

Remember, Facebook is a parent company to other revenue sources. The company
will continue to survive. Then again, the same can technically be said of
Myspace.

Facebook's user growth in North America is in decline.

[https://techcrunch-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/techcrunch.com...](https://techcrunch-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/facebook-time-spent/amp/)

Being someone who works for a media company, we've already seen a significant
drop in Facebook followers since the Cambridge Analytica fiasco.

No, I don't think Facebook the social media platform has a bright future. The
fact that Gen Z isn't using Facebook is a sign that Facebook has entered the
initial stages of apoptosis.

[https://amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.b...](https://amp-
businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.businessinsider.com/generation-
z-facebook-2018-1)

I can't say I blame Gen Z. Why would any young person want to use Facebook at
this point when it's highly censored and your mom and grandma are peering at
every post you make or like?

------
onetimemanytime
they should have never been allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram in the first
place.

~~~
apotheothesomai
Um, neither WhatsApp nor Instagram were competitors to Facebook. Both of the
acquired companies simply did something that Facebook tried to do, but very
successfully.

The government can only prevent acquisitions and mergers, when such would
greatly harm the consumer by giving a company too much control of a vital
market, like health insurance or phone service. Moreover, it didn't stop banks
from consolidating 30 separate entities into 5 between 1990 and 2005 or so.

~~~
mantas
How would you describe competitors if it's not someone who tries to do same
thing?

On top of that, there was very move of youngsters to WhatsApp and Instagram as
their social media of choice. Instead of lame old man's Facebook. That's very
clear competition for new users.

