But I'm not sure Hughes fully understands the problem either. Using anti-trust action to break FB into 5 smaller companies, is like breaking a cancerous tumour into 5 smaller ones. Before long, one would become dominant and either re-merge with the others, as FB has with acquisitions like SnapChat, WhatsApp, Oculus Rift. Or drive them out of business, the same way it did with Orkut, Friendster, Bebo, MySpace, G+, and dozens of others. (1/2)
For "market-based accountability" to work, a minimum condition is that users have to be able to vote with their feet, and take their data and "social graph" (social network of "friends" and "followers") to another platform. It works best, as with email providers and cell phone carriers, if users can move to (or try out) another platform, while still being able to communicate and share with their friends on the old platform. Even the #fediverse only does the second one, not the first. (2/2)
Correction, FB acquired *Instagram*. SnapChat is not part of the FB empire (yet ;)
"The most problematic aspect of Facebook’s power is Mark’s unilateral control over speech. There is no precedent for his ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people."
Exactly. Which is why the 'it's only censorship when the goverment does it' line doesn't hold water. FB is now the world's biggest unelected government.
did splitting up AT&T work?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against splitting up FB, far from it. I agree with Hughes that the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions never ought to have been approved and reversing them is low-hanging fruit that needs to be plucked before they get digested. All I'm saying is regulating for #DataPortability and #Interoperability is more important to protecting both consumer rights and fair competition. Splitting up FB won't fix the similar problems with Goggle, the Amazone etc
@jack great! Let's make a list. I've started a stub page here, suggestions (or editing help) welcome:
@null intriguing comparison. During the heydey of financial colonization ("structual adjustment"), the IMF effectively governed a lot of people. But I doubt it was ever 2 billion and I'd be very surprised if it is now. Go ahead, surprise me! I'd love to know more about their current operations
@null how do you think the #IMF got away with financial colonization? Part of it was a compliant news media whose corporate owners were making too much money out of it to allow proper reporting. A big part of how we pushed back was using the free and open internet to break the corporate media blockade, expose the grim realities of "structural adjustment" and organize against the IMF. FB replacing both the news media and the free net is incredibly dangerous.
@null #Scoop.co.nz. #WikiLeaks. The #AntiMedia. #ActOut. #TheYoungTurks. That was just off the top of my head. Need I go on? The "incoherence and hysteria" is a product of FB and the other #DataFarms, their proprietary algorithms, their tweaking for attention and ad revenue etc. Not the net as a technology, which as well as the corporate platforms, also gives me access to huge numbers of #PeerReviewed literature, lectures from academics, #OER like #MIT #OpenCourseWare etc
@null #ProPublica. #HuffPost. #RadioNZ (livestream available and many shows now available as podcasts) #ABC (Australian), #BBC, and other public broadcasters now available to a global audience. But I'm pretty sceptical of the whole concept of "the news". As #NeilPostman wrote about its origins and biases in 'Amusing Ourselves to Death', it's form derived from the telegraph, and however impartial it aims to be, it tends to distort the relative importance of information based on how "new" it is.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!