Time to Break Up Facebook?

[RunInRed 16,430]

Chris Hughes, a co-founder of FB penned this op-ed in the NYT.  I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion he reaches but it's hard to argue against some of his underlying points.  Thoughts?

A long but fascinating read ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

[DKW 86 7,426]

NPR had a long explanation of the history on Z and Hughes relationship. They were very very close at one time. Hughes now feels like FB has sold its soul for data-mining mega bucks and political money whether thru ads or data-mining results. FB is now an unindicted co-conspirator in some cases it is so bad. I am glad that they have taken Farrakhan, Jones, Beck and others off the site. It alarms me a bit that Free Speech isnt free anymore but FB isnt denying them space on the Internet, just space on FB. 

[Mike4AU 1,739]

This is an extremely well written article and is very thought provoking, but Hughes doesn’t really address the biggest problem FB has.  All of its problems lie squarely at the feet of one guy.  Moreover, there is a school of thought that the long term future of FB is bleak, mainly because the younger generations are going elsewhere.  

Back to the one guy, and everyone but Z knows who the one guy is.  Z is a brilliant guy, but there are plenty of brilliant folks who simply are not good CEO’s.  Z has become a megalomaniac and is not capable of being a high level CEO.  So far, FB has become successful in spite of itself. 

You can bet that Congress has its eyes on Z and others, like Musk.  I am typically not in favor of government intervention in companies, but there are times when the actions or inactions of leaders of companies provoke Congress into action.  Z and Musk are going down that road, for sure. 

[RunInRed 16,430]

On 5/11/2019 at 1:02 PM, Mike4AU said:

 All of its problems lie squarely at the feet of one guy. 

How did Hughes not address this?  He explicitly calls this out; even mentions Zuck's 60% voting override on the oversight board.

On 5/11/2019 at 1:02 PM, Mike4AU said:

Moreover, there is a school of thought that the long term future of FB is bleak, mainly because the younger generations are going elsewhere.  

I disagree.  As the article points out, there hasn't been a new social media platform since 2011.  And even when there are, FB now has the scale they can either buy them (e.g., IG, Whatsapp), block them (i.e., Vine) or copy/defeat them (i.e., Snapchat).

[toddc 13,194]

On 5/12/2019 at 10:42 PM, RunInRed said:

How did Hughes not address this?  He explicitly calls this out; even mentions Zuck's 60% voting override on the oversight board.

I disagree.  As the article points out, there hasn't been a new social media platform since 2011.  And even when there are, FB now has the scale they can either buy them (e.g., IG, Whatsapp), block them (i.e., Vine) or copy/defeat them (i.e., Snapchat).

It’s definitely sounding like you are describing a monopoly! Or what my country grandmother called “too big for your own briches “!

[johnnyAU 3,634]

I'm happy that I 99% quit using FB several years ago. The only thing I respond to are occasional messages from friends I trust, but that is a rarity these days. I never willingly log on and check anyone's status.

I saw how it was monopolizing too many people's time and it was causing so many issues with friends and family over things they would never argue about in person. Now it, along with others like Twitter and Youtube have become so politicized it becomes a weapon. We live in a very strange time.