Facebook rejects co-founder call for breakup, senator urges U.S. antitrust probe

[webfact]

Facebook rejects co-founder call for breakup, senator urges U.S. antitrust probe
 

FILE PHOTO: Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook, speaks at the Charles Schwab IMPACT 2010 conference in Boston, Massachusetts October 28, 2010. REUTERS/Adam Hunger

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facebook Inc quickly rejected a call from co-founder Chris Hughes on Thursday to split the world's largest social media company in three, while lawmakers urged the U.S. Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation.

 

Facebook has been under scrutiny from regulators around the world over data sharing practices as well as hate speech and misinformation on its networks. Some U.S. lawmakers have pushed for action to break up big tech companies as well as federal privacy regulation.

 

"We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark's power is unprecedented and un-American," Hughes, a former college roommate of Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, wrote in a lengthy New York Times opinion piece.

 

Facebook's social network has more than 2 billion users. It also owns WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram, each used by more than 1 billion people. Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

 

Facebook rejected Hughes' call for WhatsApp and Instagram to be made into separate companies, and said the focus should instead be on regulating the internet. Zuckerberg will be in Paris on Friday to discuss internet regulation with French President Emmanuel Macron.

 

"Facebook accepts that with success comes accountability. But you don't enforce accountability by calling for the break up of a successful American company," Facebook spokesman Nick Clegg said in a statement.

 

"Accountability of tech companies can only be achieved through the painstaking introduction of new rules for the internet. That is exactly what Mark Zuckerberg has called for."

 

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, told CNBC he thinks Facebook should be broken up and that the Justice Department's antitrust division needs to begin an investigation.

 

Antitrust law makes such a proposal tough to execute because the government would have to take the company to court and win. It is rare to break up a company but not unheard of, with Standard Oil and AT&T being the two biggest examples.

 

SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY

Hughes co-founded Facebook in 2004 at Harvard with Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz. He left Facebook in 2007, and has said in a LinkedIn post he made half a billion dollars for his three years of work.

 

"It's been 15 years since I co-founded Facebook at Harvard, and I haven't worked at the company in a decade. But I feel a sense of anger and responsibility," Hughes said.

 

Facebook lost several executives after a bruising series of privacy and disinformation scandals since 2016. The founders of Instagram and WhatsApp have left, as has the executive who took over WhatsApp last year.

 

Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, who had been at the company for 13 years and was one of Zuckerberg's closest lieutenants, stepped down in March around the same time Facebook announced a pivot towards more private messaging.

 

He later cited "artistic differences" with Zuckerberg as his reason for leaving, without elaborating.

 

Critics say the company's pivot to privacy, which will introduce more encrypted communications, will restrict Facebook's ability to police propaganda, hate speech and other abusive behavior. Cox focused on improving tools to catch banned content in recent years.

 

Despite its scandals, the company's core business has proven resilient. Facebook has blown past earnings estimates in the past two quarters and its stock price barely budged in response to Hughes' opinion piece.

 

Hughes suggested Zuckerberg should be held responsible for privacy and other lapses at the company, echoing a call earlier this month by Democratic U.S. Senator Ron Wyden to hold the CEO individually liable for "repeated violations" of privacy.

 

"The government must hold Mark accountable. For too long, lawmakers have marveled at Facebook's explosive growth and overlooked their responsibility to ensure that Americans are protected and markets are competitive," Hughes said.

 

LAWMAKER PRESSURE

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, has vowed to break up Facebook, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google if elected.

 

"Today's big tech companies have too much power—over our economy, our society, & our democracy. They've bulldozed competition, used our private info for profit, hurt small businesses & stifled innovation. It's time to #BreakUpBigTech," Warren said on Twitter on Thursday.

 

Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in a statement he agreed in retrospect that U.S. regulators should not have approved Facebook's acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp.

 

"The way forward is to heavily scrutinize future mergers and to ensure no company has anti-competitive platform privileges," Khanna said.

 

In one of a number of scandals to hit the company, Facebook is accused of inappropriately sharing information belonging to 87 million users with the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica.

 

Facebook has been in advanced talks with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to settle a year-old investigation and said last month it expected to spend between $3 billion and $5 billion.

 

On Monday, Republican and Democratic U.S. senators criticized reported plans for the settlement, calling on the FTC to impose harsher penalties and more restrictions on Facebook's business practices.

 

Hughes said he last met with Zuckerberg in the summer of 2017, several months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke.

 

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

 

Adam Mosseri, Facebook's previous head of news feed who recently took over Instagram, responded to Hughes on Twitter.

 

"Regulation is important and necessary, but I'm not convinced breaking us up is the right path. Would love to chat about it if you're open," Mosseri said.

 

(Reporting by Supantha Mukherjee in Bengaluru, David Shepardson and Diane Bartz in Washington and Katie Paul in San Francisco; Editing by Arun Koyyur and Meredith Mazzilli)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-10

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[Boon Mee]

 FB needs to be broken up and fined for the blatant censorship of Conservative material posted on its site while allowing terror supporters basically free rein. 

Their time is coming along with Twitter et. al. 

[geoffbezoz]

It would improve the global community if every single type of social media company, (whose only intent is to harvest other peoples private  data and sell on for a profit) be banned from the planet  Its not going to happen of course because of corrupted human morals, but nice to dream.

[TopDeadSenter]

36 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

 FB needs to be broken up and fined for the blatant censorship of Conservative material posted on its site while allowing terror supporters basically free rein. 

Their time is coming along with Twitter et. al. 

Never mind being broken up. Facebook and Twitter must be outright banned for election meddling. Banning popular conservatives for no reason whatsoever, in an age where these social media sites have such importance in an election campaign is unforgivable. Zuckerberg and Dorsey, they had it all, but have jeopardized their businesses through their intolerant liberalism/left wing fascism - in an age where it is not regarded as being cute any more.

 

Luckily Trump is on the case, he will be concerned about this heading into the 2020 campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/03/trump-jr-accuses-facebook-silencing-conservatives-day-after-it-bans-some-far-right-users/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9286b7286042

[jingjai9]

They need to start by regulating Microsoft. Why has there been no real competition to Windows? It is time that Windows becomes open source. They have made enough money long enough. You could make a good argument that the public has not been served well if you look at all of the complaints about Windows through the years. How many companies would love it if they could develop a product and if it is not done well, simply re-sell the improved version at a later date (for example Windows vista and Windows 2000). 

What are we left with - little or no competition in regard to Microsoft and Google for starters. Add to that the fact that these companies have amassed unprecedented fortunes which enables them to buy back their stock and pay lobbyists to support their interests. This is not capitalism. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Never mind being broken up. Facebook and Twitter must be outright banned for election meddling. Banning popular conservatives for no reason whatsoever, in an age where these social media sites have such importance in an election campaign is unforgivable. Zuckerberg and Dorsey, they had it all, but have jeopardized their businesses through their intolerant liberalism/left wing fascism - in an age where it is not regarded as being cute any more.

 

Luckily Trump is on the case, he will be concerned about this heading into the 2020 campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/03/trump-jr-accuses-facebook-silencing-conservatives-day-after-it-bans-some-far-right-users/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9286b7286042

So let's break down your 'banning popular conservatives for no reason whatsoever' statement.

Banned where:-

Alex Jones - Founder of Infowars and notorious conspiracy theory nutter who is currently being sued by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre for his horrendous assertion that the massacre was in fact completely staged. 

Paul Nehlen - a self-proclaimed white supremacist holding alt-right, white nationalist, and antisemitic views and whose favourite slogan is "It's OK to be white."

Laura Loomer - a well known far-right conspiracy theorist who thinks there should be no immigration to the US and who has falsely insinuated that school shootings in Santa Fe; Texas; and Parkland, Florida; were staged, and that the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooter was affiliated with ISIS.

Paul Joseph Watson - Watson's career emerged through his work for conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website Infowars he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati. 

Milo Yiannopoulos - banned from Twitter for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others", referring to a racist harassment campaign against African-American actress Leslie Jones, he also said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys as well. In October 2017, leaked emails revealed that Yiannopoulos had repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas in his work for the website Breitbart. 

Louis Farrakhan - Leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI) which is classified as a hate group and black separatist organization. As the leader of NOI, Farrakhan has preached the organization's theology that blacks are superior to whites. He has said whites were created 6,600 years ago as a "race of devils" by an evil scientist named Yakub. At an event in Milwaukee in August 2015, Farrakhan said: "White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it’

We can see your own extremism when you describe these people as 'popular conservatives' but I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and argue these people were banned for 'no reason whatsoever'. There's plenty of reason to ban these hateful extremists and long may it continue.   

 

[connda]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Facebook Inc quickly rejected a call from co-founder Chris Hughes on Thursday to split the world's largest social media company in three, while lawmakers urged the U.S. Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation.

Of course they would reject the call to break up its monopoly.  Which is exactly why it needs to be broken up. It's a monopoly that has been given the rights of a 'platform' but acts as a publisher.  It wields editorial power, which makes it a publishing monopoly.  Time to break Facebook up and to regulate it and the other giant social media companies.  

[connda]

4 hours ago, jingjai9 said:

They need to start by regulating Microsoft. Why has there been no real competition to Windows?

Oh but there is competition in the operating system field.  All the free variants of Linux for example.  The only thing that makes Microsoft seem like a monopoly is end-users unwillingness to give up the MS operating systems and MS applications and move to a different platform.  I administered Microsoft products as my day job for years.  Since I've retired, I've moved to Linux and haven't looked back.  You can do everything you do using MS product by using Linux-base products.  

Edited May 10, 2019 by connda

[Krataiboy]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

So let's break down your 'banning popular conservatives for no reason whatsoever' statement.

Banned where:-

Alex Jones - Founder of Infowars and notorious conspiracy theory nutter who is currently being sued by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre for his horrendous assertion that the massacre was in fact completely staged. 

Paul Nehlen - a self-proclaimed white supremacist holding alt-right, white nationalist, and antisemitic views and whose favourite slogan is "It's OK to be white."

Laura Loomer - a well known far-right conspiracy theorist who thinks there should be no immigration to the US and who has falsely insinuated that school shootings in Santa Fe; Texas; and Parkland, Florida; were staged, and that the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooter was affiliated with ISIS.

Paul Joseph Watson - Watson's career emerged through his work for conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website Infowars he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati. 

Milo Yiannopoulos - banned from Twitter for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others", referring to a racist harassment campaign against African-American actress Leslie Jones, he also said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys as well. In October 2017, leaked emails revealed that Yiannopoulos had repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas in his work for the website Breitbart. 

Louis Farrakhan - Leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI) which is classified as a hate group and black separatist organization. As the leader of NOI, Farrakhan has preached the organization's theology that blacks are superior to whites. He has said whites were created 6,600 years ago as a "race of devils" by an evil scientist named Yakub. At an event in Milwaukee in August 2015, Farrakhan said: "White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it’

We can see your own extremism when you describe these people as 'popular conservatives' but I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and argue these people were banned for 'no reason whatsoever'. There's plenty of reason to ban these hateful extremists and long may it continue.   

 

You missed a trick. What about Tommy Robinson?

 

I'll leave it to you to add a suitable description. Let me guess: something along these lines. . .

 

. . .  "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe".

 

Right now (as much to his surprise as ours, I would imagine) the "lout from Luton" - to quote another of the mass media's favourite epithets - is pulling big crowds of supporters on the campaign trail as he seeks to become an MEP for the country of which he is allegedly the No. 1 enemy!

 

In the process, he has been not only verbally assaulted and spat at, but punched and had milkshakes thrown into his face, while the police have turned a deaf ear to his protests. Can you imagine this kind of inertia being shown if, say, Anna Soubrey who called for protection from a man who simply accused her of being a fascist, had been on the receiving end of such clearly unlawful abuse?

 

Robinson is perceived by the Establishment and its tame mass media as such a threat to the peace and stability of the country in which he was raised by  Irish immigrant parents that the mere mention of his name on Facebook is all it takes to get your account airbrushed.

 

He has also been barred from Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. YouTube has so far resisted pressure to follow suit, but has restricted his access. That kind of notoriety can only end up making a man famous (Well, he did have more than a million followers on Facebook, which I would imagine is a few more than Theresa May could muster, even before the Brexit debacle).

 

We need to learn the lessons of history. The arbitrary banning of free speech (other than that which is proscribed by law), simply plays into the hands of those who seek ever greater control over our individual lives. Clamping an ever tighter lid on civil, or even uncivil discourse, does nothing to solve important issues which need to be freely debated and all too often leads to a violent reaction.

 

Nobody is immune when corporate giants like Google and Facebook, with the world hanging on their every word, have a gag in their hands.

 

Today, it is the conservative and right wing under attack, to the obvious delight of the left (there really is no centre any more). But, as a look back at the repressive gestation of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, it's just a matter of time. . . 

 

Remember Martin Niemoller's words: 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Krataiboy

[jingjai9]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Oh but there is competition in the operating system field.  All the free variants of Linux for example.  The only thing that makes Microsoft seem like a monopoly is end-users unwillingness to give up the MS operating systems and MS applications and move to a different platform.  I administered Microsoft products as my day job for years.  Since I've retired, I've moved to Linux and haven't looked back.  You can do everything you do using MS product by using Linux-base products.  

 

[jingjai9]

The only thing that makes Microsoft seem like a monopoly is end-users unwillingness to give up the MS operating systems and MS applications and move to a different platform. 

 

I think you are a tech worker. I disagree with "unwillingness". It is not unwillingness, it is fear. Fear that you cannot access all programs and perform all operations.  Do you know of a resource one could go to in order to migrate from Windows. I have a feeling that the migration is easy for experienced tech people, but not the every day end user.

[johnnybangkok]

57 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

You missed a trick. What about Tommy Robinson?

 

I'll leave it to you to add a suitable description. Let me guess: something along these lines. . .

 

. . .  "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe".

 

Right now (as much to his surprise as ours, I would imagine) the "lout from Luton" - to quote another of the mass media's favourite epithets - is pulling big crowds of supporters on the campaign trail as he seeks to become an MEP for the country of which he is allegedly the No. 1 enemy!

 

In the process, he has been not only verbally assaulted and spat at, but punched and had milkshakes thrown into his face, while the police have turned a deaf ear to his protests. Can you imagine this kind of inertia being shown if, say, Anna Soubrey who called for protection from a man who simply accused her of being a fascist, had been on the receiving end of such clearly unlawful abuse?

 

Robinson is perceived by the Establishment and its tame mass media as such a threat to the peace and stability of the country in which he was raised by  Irish immigrant parents that the mere mention of his name on Facebook is all it takes to get your account airbrushed.

 

He has also been barred from Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. YouTube has so far resisted pressure to follow suit, but has restricted his access. That kind of notoriety can only end up making a man famous (Well, he did have more than a million followers on Facebook, which I would imagine is a few more than Theresa May could muster, even before the Brexit debacle).

 

We need to learn the lessons of history. The arbitrary banning of free speech (other than that which is proscribed by law), simply plays into the hands of those who seek ever greater control over our individual lives. Clamping an ever tighter lid on civil, or even uncivil discourse, does nothing to solve important issues which need to be freely debated and all too often leads to a violent reaction.

 

Nobody is immune when corporate giants like Google and Facebook, with the world hanging on their every word, have a gag in their hands.

 

Today, it is the conservative and right wing under attack, to the obvious delight of the left (there really is no centre any more). But, as a look back at the repressive gestation of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, it's just a matter of time. . . 

 

Remember Martin Niemoller's words: 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

You almost got there and nearly put forward a decent enough example of the  'arbitrary banning of free speech' but they are not being banned because they put forward controversial viewpoints (as there are still plenty of others on FB who still do this) but rather they 'promote or engage in violence and hate and spread misinformation' which has been in Facebook terms of service from the beginning. 

FB, Twitter, Instagram and the likes are commercial businesses and as such can ban whoever they so wish from THEIR platform as much as any business can pick and choose their customers (within the law). My post was in reply to another poster attempts to virtue signal these people as paragons of upstanding right-wing values when in reality they are two bit conspiracy theorists, racists, misogynists, Islamophobes and on occasions have incited their 'followers' to violence. This by any decent societies standards should be unacceptable and certainly shouldn't be given the size of platform that the likes of FB, Istagram etc offer.

And I didn't mention Tommy Robinson as we are talking about those banned in America but for you to use him as some sort of bastion of free speech grossly diminishes what his 'free speech is really all about.  

In your own words, Tommy Robinson . . .  "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe" (which is all true thank you) got banned from Facebook and I quote 'for opinions that amount to hate speech that in turn may intimidate certain groups in society and for posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims.' 

No one is stopping free speech until that 'free speech' turns into 'hate speech' which could (and often does) have serious consequences for those it is aimed at. Tommy Robinson has done this on many, many occasions and is now suffering the consequences of his actions. I think that's perfectly ok. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by johnnybangkok

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You almost got there and nearly put forward a decent enough example of the  'arbitrary banning of free speech' but they are not being banned because they put forward controversial viewpoints (as there are still plenty of others on FB who still do this) but rather they 'promote or engage in violence and hate and spread misinformation' which has been in Facebook terms of service from the beginning. 

FB, Twitter, Instagram and the likes are commercial businesses and as such can ban whoever they so wish from THEIR platform as much as any business can pick and choose their customers (within the law). My post was in reply to another poster attempts to virtue signal these people as paragons of upstanding right-wing values when in reality they are two bit conspiracy theorists, racists, misogynists, Islamophobes and on occasions have incited their 'followers' to violence. This by any decent societies standards should be unacceptable and certainly shouldn't be given the size of platform that the likes of FB, Istagram etc offer.

And I didn't mention Tommy Robinson as we are talking about those banned in America but for you to use him as some sort of warrior of free speech demonstrates more about you than it does anything else.

In your own words, Tommy Robinson . . .  "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe" (which is all true thank you) got banned from Facebook  and I quote 'for opinions that amount to hate speech that in turn may intimidate certain groups in society and for posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims.' 

No one is stopping free speech until that 'free speech' turns into 'hate speech' which could (and often does) have serious consequences for those it is aimed at.  

There are laws covering libel, slander, incitement to violence, hate speech etc which apply equally to all forms of communication in a free society.

 

These should be enforced when necessary, but otherwise social media should be as free from restrictions as is Hyde Park's legendary Speaker's Corner (or was in the good old days when I would alternately jeer and josh a succession of extremist nutters).

 

Unfortunately, the term "hate speech" is being systematically stretched to cover any verbal or written statement which causes offence, in particular to certain minority groups who are adept at playing the victim card.

 

This phenomenon, together with the cloud of political correctness which hangs over the western world, is having a chilling and potentially extremely damaging effect on civil discourse - the effects of which I outlined in my last posting.

 

We must defend free speech, which includes - whether it makes us comfortable or not - the right to offend. That is why the billionaire bosses of social media platforms - the greatest opinion moulders on the planet - must be persuaded to ditch their silly rulebooks and follow the law of the land.

 

Whether or not you or I agree or disagree with Tommy Robinson or any of the other banned bloggers is irrelevant. They have a right to say what they think. We have a right to tell them they are talking out of their asses. The alternative is bunkers and violence.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Krataiboy