Facebook's Zuckerberg says Warren as U.S. president would be bad for tech

[webfact]

Facebook's Zuckerberg says Warren as U.S. president would be bad for tech

By David Shepardson and Elizabeth Culliford

 

FILE PHOTO: Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks at a campaign stop in Hollis, New Hampshire, U.S., September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facebook Inc <FB.O> Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg told employees in July that the company would "go to the mat" to defeat Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren's expected effort to break up the world's largest social media company if she were elected president, according to audio of two internal company meetings published by The Verge.

 

"If she (Warren) gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government," he said, according to the leaked audio.

 

Warren, who in March called for breaking up Amazon.com Inc <AMZN.O>, Facebook Inc <FB.O> and Alphabet Inc <GOOGL.O>, quickly issued a retort on Twitter.

 

"What would really 'suck' is if we don't fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights," Warren tweeted.

 

In a later series of tweets, Warren noted that Facebook has built more market dominance in recent years by acquiring potential competitors WhatsApp and Instagram.

 

"More than 85% of all social networking traffic goes through sites owned or operated by Facebook," she wrote. "They've got a lot of power—and face little competition or accountability.

 

"They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, undermined our democracy, and tilted the playing field against everyone else."

 

In the audio, Zuckerberg said breaking up big tech companies would make election interference "more likely because now the companies can't coordinate and work together."

 

Zuckerberg also drew laughter by saying Facebook's investment on safety is bigger than Twitter's entire revenue.

 

Zuckerberg issued a statement on his Facebook page, linking to The Verge's transcript, though he said it was meant to be internal.

 

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg told employees in July that the company would "go to the mat" to defeat Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren's expected effort to break up the world's largest social media company if she were elected president, according to audio of two internal company meetings published by The Verge. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

 

"You can check it out if you're interested in seeing an unfiltered version of what I'm thinking and telling employees" he wrote in the post.

 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has an open antitrust investigation into Facebook, and a group of state attorneys general led by New York is also investigating.

 

Other Democratic presidential candidates have also criticized Facebook. Senator Bernie Sanders said he would look to split up Facebook, Google and Amazon, while Senator Kamala Harris said a break-up should "seriously" be considered.

 

Senator Amy Klobuchar, one of the lawmakers who introduced the Honest Ads Act that would force Facebook to disclose purchasers of ads on the platform, announced her campaign with a speech that criticized major tech companies.

 

Another senior Facebook executive told Reuters this month the company is confident it would defeat an effort to break it up.

 

With more than 2 billion monthly users, Facebook been under scrutiny from regulators around the world over data sharing practices. It has also come under fire for failing to prevent Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have criticized social media platforms for alleged bias against conservatives, which the platforms have denied.

 

Zuckerberg was on Capitol Hill last month for the first time since he testified before the U.S. Congress in April 2018. While in Washington he met with Trump and members of congress. 

 

In the tape, he was asked about refusing requests to give public testimony before legislators around the world including the U.S. Senate.

 

"It just doesn't really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up," he told employees.

 

(Reporting by Elizabeth Culliford in London; Ayanti Bera and Amal S in Bengaluru; David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Shounak Dasgupta, Sandra Maler, David Gregorio and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-02

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[mtls2005]

"Zuckerberg, if you're listening."

 

 

We have a long and proud history of trust-busting, which actually benefited the economic prospects for many, including the wealthy.

 

That we've back-slid in the past ~ 40 years, owing to the few manipulating the legislative system, is disappointing.

 

Having discussions about breaking up companies which have a monopoly, are for the most part unregulated, and affect many citizen's lives, seems reasonable.

 

Finally, breaking one company up into individual components leads to more growth, and innovation. In many cases, everyone wins. Of course, those companies which fail to deliver die off. Sounds like capitalism to me?

 

 

[Tug]

Maybe bad for Facebook and mark Zuckerberg not so for innovation and smaller company’s 

[stevenl]

Agree that something needs to be done, they're getting too big and powerful.

This warning from Zuckerberg might actually work in her favour versus republicans.

[donnacha]

No love for Facebook but, seriously, Warren getting elected wouldn't just be "bad for tech", it would be catastrophic for America.

 

[donnacha]

51 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This warning from Zuckerberg might actually work in her favour versus republicans.

You think the threat of government involvement in services that most regular Americans enjoy daily and find more useful than any government "services" will appeal to the swing voters she needs to lure away from Trump? 

 

[mtls2005]

15 minutes ago, donnacha said:

No love for Facebook but, seriously, Warren getting elected wouldn't just be "bad for tech", it would be catastrophic for America.

 

An overly broad statement. At least support it with a scary, fake Russian meme. I bet you can find a few on FB?

 

13 minutes ago, donnacha said:

You think the threat of government involvement in services that most regular Americans enjoy daily

Bloody FAA, FDA, FD, PD, highway department, FDIC, insurance, electricity, water, defense, agricultural subsidies.

 

Oh the horror.

 

 

 

 

[donnacha]

17 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

An overly broad statement. At least support it with a scary, fake Russian meme.

I am not American, so, I have no dog in this fight. American politics has always been about two parties essentially working for the same masters and pretending that citizens had a democratic choice. What is very clear from the outside is that, over the past 3 years, one side of American politics has lost its sweet goddamned mind. We all saw one side drum up this patently ridiculous narrative about the Russians, and then beat it to death for 3 years before it all blew up in their faces, and that wasn't the Republicans.

Again, I have no dog in this fight, just amazed that reasonably well-educated Americans cannot see how essentially powerless all presidents actually are. If you actually want to get a Democrat elected, however, you need to stop letting Trump drive you crazy, stand back, take a breath, and think about policies that real, actual Americans - outside the beltway and coastal bubbles - might actually want to vote for.

It wasn't that Trump won in 2016, it was that Hillary lost it. Needlessly, stupidly, lazily, arrogantly. The most basic rule of politics is that you should at least try to hide your disdain for the voters. She was a truly terrible candidate. I know dozens of lifelong democrats who could not bring themselves to vote for her.

By all measures, 2020 is the Democrats to lose too. To win, all you need to do is run a calm, safe, humdrum candidate. Many swing voters would consider that a blessed relief after all the Trump excitement ... but, no, you're going to let your most passionate radicals displace sleepy Joe and you're going to run with Bernie-in-a-dress. Well done, well done everyone.

 

[Morch]

Not a fan of Facebook, Amazon and such. They certainly already wield a whole lot of power - more than is good for a healthy society, IMO.

 

But given that the USA is not the entire world, how would fracturing these firms play out in relation to foreign rivals in these fields?

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I am not American, so, I have no dog in this fight.

 

Thank you for your honesty.

 

The rest of that screed? Meh. Free speech and all.

[donnacha]

19 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Bloody FAA, FDA, FD, PD, highway department, FDIC, insurance, electricity, water, defense, agricultural subsidies.

 

Oh the horror.

Again, the vast majority of Americans use Facebook or Instagram every day and they are not going to be too keen to see the geniuses behind the DMV and TSA coming in and screwing that up for them.

Seriously, if you want to win in 2020, you have to somehow develop the humility to think about how the majority of your fellow Americans actually think.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Maybe bad for Facebook and mark Zuckerberg not so for innovation and smaller company’s 

 

She would be bad because she's a liar, who when caught lying doubles down on her lies. She's not as narcissistic, nor as malignant as Trump, but she is similarly a liar.

 

This from a pro Democrat program:

 

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/463734-saagar-enjeti-calls-warrens-credibility-into-question

[donnacha]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

The rest of that screed? Meh. Free speech and all.

Yes, very important to avoid, at all costs, any ideas that threaten your beautiful bubble.

Just keep your head stuck in the same echo-chamber as all your friends, and then you can all run around like headless chickens again in 2020 when you let Trump walk away with it again.

 

[mtls2005]

1 minute ago, donnacha said:

Seriously, if you want to win in 2020

 

Seriously, I'm not running.

 

And news flash, neither is Secretary Clinton.

 

The tide is shifting in the U.S. re: FB, but then I wouldn't expect you to know that.

 

2 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Again, the vast majority of Americans use Facebook or Instagram every day and they are not going to be too keen to see the geniuses behind the DMV and TSA coming in and screwing that up for them.

 

Again, you're speaking for the "vast majority" of Americans? Cheers, I'm sure they're happy you're taking on this role.

 

BTW, the DMV is pretty streamlined now, we can actually do most transactions on this internt thingy. And TSA? What's that. I've got TSA Pre Check.

 

But maybe you're right? Who needs a driver's license? Who needs security at airports.  What could go wrong?

 

 

 

 

[mtls2005]

14 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Yes, very important to avoid, at all costs, any ideas that threaten your beautiful bubble.

 

How am I avoiding your "ideas"? It's not like I've added you to my "Ignore" list.

 

It seems like it is you who are threatened? But that's OK too.

 

 

14 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Just keep your head stuck in the same echo-chamber as all your friends, and then you can all run around like headless chickens again in 2020 when you let Trump walk away with it again.

 

Brilliant riposte, I doff my cap to you sir.

 

So many metaphors, so little time.

 

You appear to have a dog in this fight, come on now, admit it, but's he's being neutered, and unless someone adopts him soon (Russia, are you listening?), well, we'll be sending him to a farm upstate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[donnacha]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

Seriously, I'm not running.

I'm taking a wild guess that you're a democrat.

 

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

And news flash, neither is Secretary Clinton.

You do realize, don't you, that this whole thread is about Warren?
 

 

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

The tide is shifting in the U.S. re: FB, but then I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Well, you see, we have these things called books, and this other really cool thing called the Internet, so, yeah, I am reasonably up on what is happening in the world. It turns out that having an American passport is no guarantee that the holder has any sort of insight about their country.

So, yes, I am fully aware that, having had the whole Russian thing fall apart, the Democrats are mad as Hell and thrashing about in search of the next big scandal. Along the way, they have made it crystal clear to Google, Facebook, and Twitter that they are responsible for Trump winning and, if they don't want to spend the next decade getting torn to shreds, they better fall into line and start cracking down on anyone who dares to discuss subjects that matter to most Americans.
 

 

8 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Again, you're speaking for the "vast majority" of Americans? Cheers, I'm sure they're happy you're taking on this role.

Well, you certainly aren't, and that is why you will keep attacking everything but the real reason why you are about to hand Trump a second term. Your own arrogance.

[donnacha]

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Brilliant riposte, I doff my cap to you sir.

 

So many metaphors, so little time.

Oh, I'm reasonably confident in my ability to write. Thanks.

[mtls2005]

14 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I'm taking a wild guess that you're a democrat.

Correct, life-long. Guess who one of my Senators is? Hint: see thread title, and no, it isn't zuckerberg.

 

14 minutes ago, donnacha said:

You do realize, don't you, that this whole thread is about Warren?

Well, yeah. And Facebook. D'oh.

 

14 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Your own arrogance.

Porjection.

 

Projection.  Gaze into the nearest mirror for your true enemy.

 

 

 

[donnacha]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

Porjection.

I believe that's the technical term for f*cking a pig.
 

[neeray]

I've made a few bad decisions in my life but one that was very right was "never having gotten involved in Facebook".

 

"Like", 555.

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I believe that's the technical term for f*cking a pig.

 

That you know this is interesting.

 

Seriously, it's a typo.

[GalaxyMan]

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

"Zuckerberg, if you're listening."

 

 

We have a long and proud history of trust-busting, which actually benefited the economic prospects for many, including the wealthy.

 

That we've back-slid in the past ~ 40 years, owing to the few manipulating the legislative system, is disappointing.

 

Having discussions about breaking up companies which have a monopoly, are for the most part unregulated, and affect many citizen's lives, seems reasonable.

 

Finally, breaking one company up into individual components leads to more growth, and innovation. In many cases, everyone wins. Of course, those companies which fail to deliver die off. Sounds like capitalism to me?

 

 

Couldn't agree more. I can't stand Warren, she makes my skin crawl, but I hate these blood-sucking monopolists who are trying to literally own us.

[mtls2005]

Senator WArren has detailed her proposal(s) in the form of four brief, cogent, easy-to-understand tweets on her feed.

 

 

One tweet...

 

My plan to #BreakUpBigTech would undo their illegal, anticompetitive mergers. You'll still be able to use Facebook and Instagram to catch up with friends and family and share photos of your dog. But they'll have to compete with each other to make a better product for you.

 

 

Competition. Oooooh, so scary.

 

 

 

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Senator WArren has detailed her proposal(s) in the form of four brief, cogent, easy-to-understand tweets on her feed.

 

 

One tweet...

 

My plan to #BreakUpBigTech would undo their illegal, anticompetitive mergers. You'll still be able to use Facebook and Instagram to catch up with friends and family and share photos of your dog. But they'll have to compete with each other to make a better product for you.

 

 

Competition. Oooooh, so scary.

 

 

 

 

How do you think these firm will fare on the international market, facing rivals who aren't subject to similar constraints and limitations?

[mtls2005]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How do you think these firm will fare on the international market, facing rivals who aren't subject to similar constraints and limitations?

 

Do you mean as a consumer? Shareholder? U.S. citizen? In the name of Nationalism and Protectionism?

 

I don't know.

 

Potential challengers like TikTok are already upon us. This came up in the Zuckerberg internal meeting recently.

 

I'd like to think that competition is healthy, and monopolies less so. Having oil companies own gas stations, car manufacturers own dealers, film production companies owning theaters was probably not a good thing. Those were busted up and voila, things aren't all so bad?

 

I am in favor of acknowledging and discussing problems, debating and understanding solutions and potentially implementing some regulation. That's part of what makes us unique. There is a balance between uncontrolled capitalism and state-run enterprises. Navigating this challenging course requires corrections every so often.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Do you mean as a consumer? Shareholder? U.S. citizen? In the name of Nationalism and Protectionism?

 

I don't know.

 

Potential challengers like TikTok are already upon us. This came up in the Zuckerberg internal meeting recently.

 

I'd like to think that competition is healthy, and monopolies less so. Having oil companies own gas stations, car manufacturers own dealers, film production companies owning theaters was probably not a good thing. Those were busted up and voila, things aren't all so bad?

 

I am in favor of acknowledging and discussing problems, debating and understanding solutions and potentially implementing some regulation. That's part of what makes us unique. There is a balance between uncontrolled capitalism and state-run enterprises. Navigating this challenging course requires corrections every so often.

 

 

 

 

 

As said earlier, not a fan of Facebook etc., or the power these firms accumulated. I'm wondering how such a limitation might effect the ability of USA firms to compete on global market shares, develop new tech or platforms, and to offer inter-connectivity solutions. All the more so when the competition doesn't have to deal with similar constraints. It's all good and well discussing these issues and regulating said companies , but it still doesn't answer the questions raised. And no - I do not have very good answers to them, either.

 

The notion that smaller firms implies more innovation is applicable, IMO, up to a point. Taking a new tech solution, product or whatnot to the global level requires reach, size and depth. Nowadays, some of the firms cited often buy out existing smaller firms for such innovative assets. Break them down, and the big fish would become the current overseas competition - that's not necessarily a good thing for the USA in the long run.

[KhunFred]

Anything that Zuckerberg wants cannot be a GOOD thing. That solidifies my support for Warren.

[mtls2005]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

that's not necessarily a good thing for the USA in the long run.

 

zuckerberg likes to say that Facebook is a country unto itself.

 

Protectionism is generally bad

Competition is generally good

Monopolies are generally bad

Regulation isn't always a bad thing

 

 

If we want to protect and shield U.S. companies - and I'd argue that FB is not a U.S. company per se - against foreign competition then make that a national economic policy. That'd be a mistake IMO.

 

How can you have the next FB if you let the current FB stiffle any competition? We'll be stuck with FB's pace of innovation and miss out on the rare start-up that might change something big.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

zuckerberg likes to say that Facebook is a country unto itself.

 

Protectionism is generally bad

Competition is generally good

Monopolies are generally bad

Regulation isn't always a bad thing

 

 

If we want to protect and shield U.S. companies - and I'd argue that FB is not a U.S. company per se - against foreign competition then make that a national economic policy. That'd be a mistake IMO.

 

How can you have the next FB if you let the current FB stiffle any competition? We'll be stuck with FB's pace of innovation and miss out on the rare start-up that might change something big.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. But how do non-protected firms (and even more so, hamstrung ones) on the global stage with protected firms supported by governments? It's not enough saying innovation and ingenuity will prevail.

 

As for not having a national economy - if that was meant as an all or nothing comment, we'll have to disagree. Some of this, especially when it comes to certain fields its essential.

[alex8912]

5 hours ago, donnacha said:

No love for Facebook but, seriously, Warren getting elected wouldn't just be "bad for tech", it would be catastrophic for America.

 

She is absolutely hated on the most popular Boston talk radio stations. She is our “ part time “ Senator and she will never win the election and she should stop being our Senator as well.