
Can Facebook Be Cut Down to Size? - panarky
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/facebook-china-privacy-data-security.html
======
ghostcluster
The majority of Facebook's users are outside of the US, and it is smaller than
other big US tech companies
([https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap](https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap)).

I'd rather see antitrust brought against a company using other kinds of anti
competitive tactics. Why deprecate OpenGL and not support Vulkan, Apple? Even
with DirectX, Microsoft always maintained updated OpenGL on their platform...

And extracting 30% on every transaction, including your competitors? Imagine
if Microsoft tried taking a 30% cut of every transaction that passed through
Internet Explorer, or Windows, in the 1990s

Apple's market cap is bigger than Facebook's. Almost twice as big.

[https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap](https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap)

[https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/market_cap](https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/market_cap)

~~~
lord_ring_11
Apple is not a monopoly, even google is not a monopoly. facebook is. Fb is
either buying or using its reach to enter into other markets. Messaging,
videos (youtube), stories (snapchat), crowd sourcing (gofundme), marketplace
(offerup). In all these it is using its existing dominance in one market to
enter into other which is classical case of antitrust.

~~~
adventured
Google has an extremely blatant monopoly in search. That has been the case for
over a decade now.

The competitors to Google, outside of a few markets like Russia and China, are
trivial at best.

Google's search competitors are so weak, all they've collectively done is lose
market share for 20 years. The social competitors to Facebook - Twitter,
Snapchat, Reddit, etc. - are no more threatening to FB's monopoly than
DuckDuckGo and Bing are to Google's search monopoly.

When companies like Google and Facebook have monopolies, what they do in
response is lie: they claim competition is everywhere. Microsoft used that
lying tactic as well. They pretend they're not really in the search space
specifically, they're an ad company in general, and they're only a small N% of
the whole global ad market. So Google likes to lie and pretend they compete
with every input box on the Web, and every ad served anywhere on earth;
naturally their share of all text input box usage is merely 1%.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Google has an extremely blatant monopoly in search_

Tough thing is it grew to a position of dominance, on the user side,
organically. (On the ad side, the story is more complicated.) Facebook grew on
both sides by gobbling up potential competition, _e.g._ Instagram, WhatsApp,
_et cetera_.

~~~
adventured
I agree. I regard Google search as one of the greatest technological
accomplishments in world history. The service it has been to humanity can't be
overstated. It wasn't just slightly better, it was radically better in every
way. It was faster, it produced better results, it even had greater integrity
(less clutter & junk, less abusive ad approach by not mixing results & ads,
etc).

A dominant, extreme majority market position by itself isn't valid
justification to break a company up or apply anti-trust (in the US).
Monopolies are of course not illegal in the US. Google's search product
remains superior and it's unlikely to be directly, seriously challenged by a
threatening competitor. It's the change in integrity that might take them
down. Call it greed. The greed eats the ecosystem, pushes for a greater share
of the pot, then the ecosystem cries foul to regulators, identical to
Microsoft's mistakes derived from greed. If a monopoly platform can't control
itself properly - in terms of human nature, it's probably extremely difficult
to restrain that level of economic power while existing in a low feedback, low
consequence bubble - then the authorities will probably step in and do it.
When it comes to monopolies, you can eat this, _maybe_ you can eat this and
that, you can't eat this and that and that and that and that. It's pretty much
that simple, you control yourself or eventually the guys with the guns will do
it for you (if only out of concerns for preserving their own power).

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I sincerely believe that with a little shoe polish, a little more sincere
effort into information retrieval mathematics, and better marketing,
DuckDuckGo would be a superior search product.

Currently I use DuckDuckGo for probably 85% of searches. There are specific
search cases that don’t work well, and specific types of automatic
categorization and presentation (e.g. sports scores, rich location data) that
Google is well ahead on.

But in many mundane searches, the result quality is indistinguishable and the
lack of personalized tracking would break any ties strongly in DuckDuckGo’s
favor, so strongly that it’s obviously worth it to split searches between two
different engines on a case by case basis.

And in fact, I like some things about DuckDuckGo better, particularly I like
the visual experience of its Open Street Maps results better. It’s not as
information rich as a Google Maps result, but Google Maps is visually too
cluttered and often suffers performance issues that a lower-tech maps service
doesn’t. (DuckDuckGo also lets you select from a few choices for the maps
backend, including Google Maps).

Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure Google will remain far ahead as the search
product leader.

I only mean that in terms of the implementation and actual user experience,
DuckDuckGo doesn’t have far to go before it would be entirely a substitute
product that completely replaces an average search experience on Google.

(I’m speaking as someone who had worked on all types of personalization
features for an Alexa top 400 site’s product search engine — so I have a lot
of work experience informing my opinion that the actual distance, in terms of
the investment to reproduce feature parity, between DuckDuckGo and Google is
not that high.)

Google’s original efforts to create internet search were amazing. But now the
underlying search tech is totally a commodity, including most of the fancier
machine learning and information retrieval features. It’s why they have to
integrate advertising so tightly to it. Search features alone don’t
differentiate it as a product anymore.

I do hope a service like DuckDuckGo invests in that last 10% of the squirrly
little extra features it needs to provide to seriously compete for overall
market share.

~~~
amelius
I wish DDG would include a button in the search results that says "Search in
Google instead".

That way, I would actually use DDG as my main search engine because it would
be easy to resort to Google in specific cases.

~~~
gbear605
Check out Bangs on DDG [1]. Just insert "!g" into your search text and it
automatically redirects your search to Google. It works for thousands of other
websites too. (Wikipedia's !w is one I use all the time)

[1]: [https://duckduckgo.com/bang](https://duckduckgo.com/bang)

~~~
amelius
Yeah, I know about bangs, but on mobile they are cumbersome to use: I have to
tap my screen 7 times to change from DDG to Google:

    
    
        1. tap DDG search bar
        2. tap space
        3. tap shift key
        4. tap "!"
        5. tap shift key
        6. tap "g"
        7. tap enter key
    

If DDG included a simple button, it would be 1 tap. Of course, I can't blame
them for not linking to Google, but this way I will stick with Google.

------
zestyping
This op-ed argues the question "Should Facebook Be Cut Down to Size?" but
doesn't really address whether it can, or how.

Can it? What would work? How would you do it, if you could?

~~~
obelix_
It can.

The root cause of a lot of problems Facebook creates is the like count next to
every utterances, article or behaviour on the net. This has to be regulated
much more than private data/friend graphs/location data/what you view/search
for etc etc.

Psychologists will tell you the most effective way to influence behaviour of
an individual is to show people what the herd around them is thinking, saying
or doing. This is how society has always created "social norms".

If people around you don't smoke, you are less likely to be a smoker. Teen
girls who see other girls get pregnant are more likely to get pregnant. There
are literally thousands of examples that can be cited about how seriously we
take this signal.

In a world with too much info that no one is trained to handle or are too busy
or distracted to handle, we look at what what the majority of people around us
are doing and do that blindly. This is signal influences behaviour. Both good
and bad.

Facebook has fucked that signal up for society. In every sphere of life. And
we are currently dealing with the fallout. The signal is being delievered too
fast and too much imho. And this speed is highly overrated in its value to
society.

Whether these counts should be displayed, to who, how quickly, next to what
type of content, for different communities, education levels etc needs to be
debated and regulated.

~~~
dqpb
Good point. While we're at it, let's get rid of Amazon and Netflix
recommendations, Google search results ordered by quality and relevance, and
email spam filtering.

~~~
hux_
So you think the like counts don't have negative effects on people's beliefs
and behaviours? Please read Nudge by Richard Thaler to understand how easily
misguided the herd is when following the wrong signals.

------
lwansbrough
Why does Facebook seem to be everyone's focus? Look at the control Google has
over the web. Why would you start with Facebook?

~~~
jowiar
The social tie-ins of FB make it much “stickier” than Google. Google has a ton
of power, but very little of it locks an individual in. The “chase you around
the internet” bit is a problem, but addressing that is not that complicated.

The service FB provides is much closer to a natural monopoly. The value of
FB’s service derived entirely from the sheer volume of people who use it.
Saying “I am not going to use FB” is a cost to everyone around you.

~~~
thisacctforreal
This can be a problem with Google, at least if you consider baby duck
syndrome[1].

Google Docs is often the only comfortable and familiar way to collaborate on
documents for many groups, and YouTube is often the only source of video
content on the internet.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Duck_Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Duck_Syndrome)

~~~
jgh
Right but deciding not to use Google services doesn't cut you off from
everybody you know. My family uses Messenger, my US friends use Instagram, my
European friends use Whatsapp...

Even though I don't have a Facebook profile anymore, I'm still very much a
Facebook user because it would be difficult for me to convince everyone else
to switch to some alternative.

------
rcar1046
One could argue that a social network must necessarily be a monopoly to be
useful to users unless cross site communication between multiple social
networks was mandated.

Just as 5 different companies each listing 20% of the residential phone
numbers wouldn't make sense. The more completely a social network covers the
population the more useful it becomes to users.

~~~
lallysingh
But it'd be a poor argument. Email does multi-provider interop well.

~~~
akvadrako
If you have rather low standards. Email works just well enough, but it's
turning into walled gardens, has no de facto e2e encryption, still has a spam
problem and has a terrible UI for non-technical users in group settings.

------
pascalxus
If facebook is in danger of being cut down, why doesn't facebook just not
higher so many employees? It seems like a win win situation: less cost, more
profit and if fewer products get built as a result of the lower employee
highering then there's less chance of blowback from the public

------
yedawg
Facebook just needs to have enough unsuccessful attempts at buying out it's
competitors. This displaces power. With enough power and media displacement
facebook falls. It's really that simple. Facebook is betting on people to sell
out (which they always do) and for users to pay the price.

------
russdpale
I doubt it can be reigned in. No government has control of the money flow, how
can it possibly have any real control?

------
jadedhacker
My first reaction was to be shocked. The NYT? Advocating for the death of a
major corporation? What's in it for them?

My guess is they've sensed the national mood is shifting. If something isn't
done, then people will start to demand something more drastic than simply
breaking up a large world spanning company.

The capitalist system must give the appearance of health to forestall further
demands. It is looking very ill at the top of the tech sector. The tyranny
(iron rule by a minority) inherent to private enterprise is flowering atop an
incredibly concentrated sector and it's becoming obvious to anyone that looks.

~~~
danjayh
You're right to be shocked about the NYT calling for the breakup of facebook,
but I think your a bit off on the 'why'. I say you're right to be shocked
because Facebook is run by a person who some on the left were previously
calling to make a presidential run, who was previously a shining beacon to the
world's left-dominated media (including the NYT) ... so yeah, it's kind of
shocking to see how quickly they've turned on Zuckerberg and Facebook.

The real story of 'why' the about face has to do with Cambridge Analytica,
though. Many in the media still feel that the election 'should' have gone the
other way (regardless of how people actually voted), and now they blame
FB/Zuck. The irony is that in 2008 Obama's team did all of the same things
that Trump's did. The media was OK with it then (in fact, celebrated it)
because it was for their side.

~~~
jadedhacker
I would say FB was celebrated by liberals, not by leftists. CA is a media
project of the liberal media, not the leftist media. I've been very skeptical
that CA had a large impact when FB's ad categories are so often blatantly
wrong.

[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-difference-
betwee...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-difference-between-
liberalism-and-leftism)

------
eulers__number
fake news

------
uabstraction
Not with this Congress.

------
KasianFranks
No need, they're going the way of AOL, friendster and myspace.

------
merinowool
If you can use different social network than Facebook, then Facebook is not a
monopoly.

~~~
Niksko
Not necessarily disagreeing, but doesn't that basically invalidate the idea of
a monopoly in a free and open internet? Perhaps the definition of a monopoly
from analog era doesn't apply to the internet?

~~~
merinowool
Yes, in the free market monopoly is impossible to form. You only get anomalies
when you start adding socialism into the mix.

~~~
simion314
Do you have a scientific resource that proves your statement? Like a model
that was run in a computer and resulted in a perfect free market?

Maybe it would be true in a perfect free market, where people would act
rational and won't be jerks,

I don't have proof but intuitively I can see a free market simulator where
some actors will find a small loophole and exploit it to maximize it's profit
destroying everyone else.

~~~
merinowool
It is just common sense. Regulations give one advantage and restrict
competition which is a breeding ground for monopolies.

~~~
icebraining
That only shows that regulations may create monopolies, not that they're the
_only_ reason for their existence.

~~~
merinowool
Sure, but that is the main reason.

~~~
simion314
Is this a fact or your intuition, in a perfect society we do not need laws, in
such a perfect society communism would also work fine, but since the world is
not perfect we need laws or revolutions to fix the problems,

I would really love some economist to team up with some game developers and
run some economic simulations with different level of regulations, it would be
interesting to see how well the model would match the reality.

~~~
merinowool
This is my observation and so far it has not been proven wrong.

------
cm2187
Is facebook still a problem? I don't know anyone around me who didn't tell me
they ceased to use it.

~~~
nxc18
You're in a bubble.

I quit Facebook on principle but I'm suffering for it. I'm trying to meet new
people, strengthen friendships, get out more, etc. Literally everyone I know
except for one person does eventing and communicating on Facebook, so that's
pretty rough.

Facebook's network effect should not be underestimated.

------
kumarvvr
This is a fundamentally wrong question.

Even if cut down, their business model remains the same. Selling users data to
the highest bidder.

It is fairly obvious that user privacy is utmost important to civil society.

We, as a society, should move away from fb and let it die its natural death.

Splitting it will only lead to normalization of sale of user data.

~~~
xapata
> fairly obvious that user privacy is utmost important

No, it's not obvious. Society has many competing priorities.

Further, the definition of privacy changes rapidly.

~~~
donatj
I for one don’t understand how or why anyone would presume anything they do on
Facebook is private.

I’ve always considered what I enter as being _given_ to Facebook rather than
somehow _mine_ despite being in Facebooks possession, on their drives in their
servers. When I give it to Facebook, it’s theirs. If you don’t want something
known I don’t give it to Facebook...

If I give my friend my phone number, that’s their knowledge, not mine. It
makes no sense to demand they forget it. If they hand it out, they’re a bad
friend. I don’t tell bad friends important secrets.

~~~
gaius
_I’ve always considered what I enter as being given to Facebook rather than
somehow mine despite being in Facebooks possession, on their drives in their
servers._

There is a huge difference between what you explicitly type into boxes on FB's
own website, and their policy of tracking you on every other site they can and
correlating the data. Further, they (and others) go to extreme lengths to do
so even if you log out of their site, clear cookies, browse in private mode,
yadda yadda.

