Freedom From Facebook Call for Breakup

[FrgMstr]

Freedom from Facebook, looks to be an activist group, but very little information on the site gives us any insight into who is actually behind it. The following organizations are listed as backing it: Citizens Against Monopoly, Content Creators Coalition, Demand Progress, Jewish Voice for Peace, MoveOn, Mpower Change, Open Markets Institute, and SumOfUs. It looks that the goal of the organization is to have Facebook broken up into separate companies by the FTC. Of course, if you truly wanted Freedom From Facebook, you would just stop using it and delete your account. You can see the FFF Facebook page here. An ICANN Whois on the domain gives no insight as to the ownership of the site.

​

But Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have amassed a scary amount of power. Facebook unilaterally decides the news that billions of people around the world see every day. It buys up or bankrupts potential competitors to protect its monopoly, killing innovation and choice. It tracks us almost everywhere we go on the web and, through our smartphones, even where we go in the real world. It uses this intimate data hoard to figure out how to addict us and our children to its services. And then Facebook serves up everything about us to its true customers -- virtually anyone willing to pay for the ability to convince us to buy, do, or believe something.

And it is spending millions on corporate lobbyists, academics, and think tanks to ensure no one gets in their way.

Enough.

The five members of the Federal Trade Commission, which is the part of our government tasked with overseeing Facebook, can make Facebook safe for our democracy by breaking it up, giving us the freedom to communicate across networks, and protecting our privacy.

Together, we will make sure that they do.

 

[Nobu]

It certainly has a lot of power, but it's not a monopoly. If you dislike Facebook, there are (arguably better) alternatives...like myspace!

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Based on the NGOs backing FFF, I would avoid supporting it. I am also in the camp who believes that Facebook doesn't need to be broken up, but Alphabet/Google sure does.

Facebook doesn't need to be broken up. But it does need some kind of competition - all the privacy concerns of late ought to open the door for an alternative. I sure hope so, anyway. Agree that the NGOs backing this are lol. I wouldn't agree with them if they said the sky was blue.

 

[rsquared]

What does breaking up Facebook, "spin off Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger into competing networks", even accomplish? Facebook will still be able to "decide the news people see", etc. etc., without them. There's something shady behind this.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Or... just put down the phone.

 

[FrgMstr]

What does breaking up Facebook, "spin off Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger into competing networks", even accomplish? Facebook will still be able to "decide the news people see", etc. etc., without them. There's something shady behind this.

Had the same feeling...not sure what it is though.

 

[BSmith]

/rant=on

My gawd, just what we need,.....more nannying. Facebook has what it has because people are too fraking weak to simply walk away from it. Asking the FTC to do somehting about peoples inability to make good choices is idiotic, lame, and simply stupid.

You want to effect change? Then get your collective ignorant arses off that damn site yourself. Nothing pissies me off more than the continual begging for intervention because people are too stupid and weak to walk away from shit like this.

/rant=off

 

[SomeoneElse]

What does breaking up Facebook, "spin off Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger into competing networks", even accomplish? Facebook will still be able to "decide the news people see", etc. etc., without them. There's something shady behind this.

Lately there is something shady behind alot of whats going on. I've come to question pretty much everything that has been happening in the news. Hell even news reports i question, NOT because of the whole "Fake News" movement by Mr Trump. I haven't trusted anything the media has had to offer for the better part of 2 decades now. Especially news that was cover the Afghan war and the War in Iraq. (being I was part of the Afghan war at the time). They are pretty much more opinion pieces rather than facts reporting.
What true monopoly does FB actually have? Social media is an elected use product that doesn't actually do anything for you as the person. I don't really consider it a service since you don't even pay to use it.

 

[ThatITGuy]

I do not like Facebook.

That said, isn't it the people's own fault for not being able to parse information and validate it? Is it not people's own fault for giving them 1) access to the information 2) permissions to use that information? I am pretty sure that if the Kardashian show required the entire family's SSN, address and bank account numbers in order to watch it, that network would have all of that data for a lot of people

People have a weird fascination (compulsion?) with living their lives through other people's lives instead of their own. I think Facebook may exploit this, but the people need to hold themselves responsible as well.

Now details of if Facebook is allowing access to more information than it discloses is a different discussion, as is their tracking of non-users and tracking beyond their tools.

 

[FrgMstr]

thats complete HORSE SHIT


YOU.. decide what news you see every day...

Yep, that little X in the upper right hand corner of your browser will solve all your problems.

 

[Pez]

thats complete HORSE SHIT
YOU.. decide what news you see every day...

I was going to say the same thing. People willingly use FB. They willingly put their info out there. They willingly discuss personal or intimate issues. They willingly read what information is provided to them. Everybody has heard the term "fake news". I'm sure most people are aware that false posts/groups/news has been posted through FB. If they still choose to read that shit, then it's on them.

If the news FB was posting suddenly swung very far right, I'm sure all the snowflakes would immediately stop using it. They use FB because it panders to their whims and desires. The users have the attention spans of 3 year olds. They want their instant info, and don't care if it is accurate or not.

 

[SecretStash]

Forcing a break up could set a bad precedent.

But if Facebook could tank for other reasons, that would be good. I can wisely chose my news sources, but other people's idoicy still affects my life when they allowed to vote.

 

[zamardii12]

It certainly has a lot of power, but it's not a monopoly. If you dislike Facebook, there are (arguably better) alternatives...like myspace!

And Google +!

 

[kju1]

What does breaking up Facebook, "spin off Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger into competing networks", even accomplish? Facebook will still be able to "decide the news people see", etc. etc., without them. There's something shady behind this.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised to learn that Facebook actually backed these as shills so they could do some clever maneuvering and look like they are addressing the public concerns...

 

[Schtask]

Looks like fffb used domainsbyproxy.com .... Whoever started it wants to keep their name off of it.

 

[Jagger100]

It certainly has a lot of power, but it's not a monopoly. If you dislike Facebook, there are (arguably better) alternatives...like myspace!

You don't need to be 100% to qualify or all historical monopolies would have found a way to prop up some Ma & Pa operation and bypass all anti-monopoly regulations.
Your monopoly status does not also need to be your fault for from nefarious activities.

 

[Dead Parrot]

Hum. Breakup Facebook because breaking up AT&T worked out so well? Far better to regulate the monster we have then deal with all of the evil spawn that would result from a breakup . And AFAIK, there is no rule that says you have to be on FB.

 

[Jagger100]

thats complete HORSE SHIT


YOU.. decide what news you see every day...

Not if you get your news from facebook traffic. I don't use fb, but I also don't have a lot of spare time like other people seem to have. Having news pushed at me would be very very convenient. Also people have not reason to know their feed is "curated"
Also doesn't matter what I do, when I'm forced to suffer the choices by other people who don't make an effort.

 

[Nobu]

You don't need to be 100% to qualify or all historical monopolies would have found a way to prop up some Ma & Pa operation and bypass all anti-monopoly regulations.
Your monopoly status does not also need to be your fault for from nefarious activities.

Right, but I still don't think they're a monopoly. Unless you can find something they do which fits any of the examples on this page:

Exclusionary Conduct
Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct.

Business Justification
Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

 

[kju1]

Not if you get your news from facebook traffic. I don't use fb, but I also don't have a lot of spare time like other people seem to have. Having news pushed at me would be very very convenient. Also people have not reason to know their feed is "curated"
Also doesn't matter what I do, when I'm forced to suffer the choices by other people who don't make an effort.

If youre dumb enough to get your news from FB you need to inject some chlorine into your reproductive organs.

Also you can get your news pushed to you: RSS feeds have been around for quite some time...

 

[Armenius]

I do not like Facebook.

That said, isn't it the people's own fault for not being able to parse information and validate it? Is it not people's own fault for giving them 1) access to the information 2) permissions to use that information? I am pretty sure that if the Kardashian show required the entire family's SSN, address and bank account numbers in order to watch it, that network would have all of that data for a lot of people

People have a weird fascination (compulsion?) with living their lives through other people's lives instead of their own. I think Facebook may exploit this, but the people need to hold themselves responsible as well.

Now details of if Facebook is allowing access to more information than it discloses is a different discussion, as is their tracking of non-users and tracking beyond their tools.

 

[N4CR]

There's something shady behind this.

It's called controlled opposition, the list gives it away.

 

[Jagger100]

If youre dumb enough to get your news from FB you need to inject some chlorine into your reproductive organs.

Also you can get your news pushed to you: RSS feeds have been around for quite some time...

WTF does that matter when most people do it anyway and vote based on it and have no clue what a RSS feed is. What fantasy world do you live in where other people's votes don't affect you? I guess there's no crime there? No one is overweight? No girl/boyfriend or spouse cheats? Have fun in a world that never was and never will be. I'll live in the real world where manipulating people by manipulating what they see is a real thing. Don't get in the way of adults.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

1. Don't get your news from FB.
2. A lot of people do get news from FB.
3. They vote.
4. FB isn't a monopoly in a de jure technical sense.
5. FB is a de facto monopoly in a certain space.
6. The NGOs pushing this are as bad, if not worse, than FB itself.
7. Breaking up Facebook sets a bad precedent and probably won't fix the problem.
8. Google is worse anyway.

All of these things can be (and IMHO are) true.

 

[kju1]

WTF does that matter when most people do it anyway and vote based on it and have no clue what a RSS feed is. What fantasy world do you live in where other people's votes don't affect you? I guess there's no crime there? No one is overweight? No girl/boyfriend or spouse cheats? Have fun in a world that never was and never will be. I'll live in the real world where manipulating people by manipulating what they see is a real thing. Don't get in the way of adults.

Calm down dude. I never said other peoples votes dont impact me. Stop putting words in my post that werent there.

A world that never was huh? What nightmare world did you live in where Facebook always existed?

 

[SecretStash]

Soros

 

[jedijeb13]

I never joined FB so I guess I was on the FFFB bandwagon for years

Facebook isn't a monopoly because they don't lock you out from using something else, if it exists. Now if they make deals with all the cell phone companies and internet service providers that preclude them from offering service to any other social media site, then that would become a monopoly. That is what AT&T and Standard Oil were guilty of. Microsoft was pushing the limits when they tried to make it so no computer could be sold wthout an operating system and that they would charge more to any OEM that sold a PC with any other OS as an option.

Honestly sites like this are about as involved in social media as I want to get.

 

[leathco016]

Not putting a lot of faith in the idiots that decide the best way to form an anti-facebook movement is by making a facebook page.