6 ms·

The notion that a cofounder has some secret sauce that gives the government the authority and power to do something like this is a great way to drive clicks. Bu

The notion that a cofounder has some secret sauce that gives the government the authority and power to do something like this is a great way to drive clicks. But it ain't gonna break up facebook.

luckydata 7y ago
he definitely has context about how things work and help craft a better proposal.
- lwb 7y ago
  He left in 2007 ... the company has changed a lot since then.
maximente 7y ago
not on its own, but it could help move along anti-trust or whatever litigation: recall that an intel VP was brought in to testify against microsoft in that ordeal, so imagine what effects an insider with (presumably) evidence and an agenda could have.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Seems to me it weakens any agrument as Hughes is not a neutral objective opinion. Certainly the DoJ can make a solid case sans some outlier.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Well, also recall that nothing happened to M$. There was no breakup because the courts laughed the government out of the room. In the end, they ended up having to negotiate with M$, and there was an agreement to allow other browsers on M$ operating systems. Basically it was laughable. But the law is the law. And that would be why we need to change the law. Going after digital companies using laws set up to regulate non-digital companies, is just the height of foolishness. You would think the M$ experience would have taught people? But I guess not.
  - wskinner 7y ago
    In your opinion, what would have been the positive effects of breaking up Microsoft? Other browsers would have beaten explorer more quickly than they did? Something else?
throwaway2048 7y ago
The government doesn't need the authority and power, it already has it, Facebook could be turned off tomorrow if the government decided it wanted to do so. What it needs is a plan and motivation to do so. He can provide both in spades.
- NeoBasilisk 7y ago
  If you are down-voting this, you should probably take a hard look at your thought processes.
  - smt88 7y ago
    OK, even though this is a dismissive, condescending, and content-free comment, I'll bite: What are some $200B+, publicly-traded companies that the government has "turned off"? Facebook has lots of qualities that make it impossible to kill on a whim: - Peter Thiel is influential in the current admin and also a FB investor - Many companies are spending millions a day on Facebook ads and may have pre-paid - Facebook login is a primary authentication scheme for many websites/apps (like Tinder) - Billions of irreplaceable photos are warehoused in Facebook You and GP are making the bolder claim by far, so the burden is on you to provide evidence.
    - komali2 7y ago
      Yea, I mean, it's extremely unlikely that Facebook will be "switched off." But, I think there are some possibilities that range from "extremely improbable" and "illegal / probably illegal" to merely "improbable." 1. Current admin declares "fake news" to be a national emergency. Demands Facebook turn over all keys to all databases. Democrats in Congress cry foul, Republicans are "concerned," until Facebook doesn't turn over the keys. Justice system gets involved, and then the debate turns from "extraordinary government overreach into free speech and privacy" into one about how a corporate is spitting in the face of American sovereignty and security, and "activist" judges, etc. Probable outcome: nothing happens because a Federal Judge in Hawaii says no. Possible Outcome: Facebook gets scared and hands over their data, tanking trust and usage. 2. Current admin orders a massive investigation into Facebook ties with Russia, throws around accusations like "spycraft" and "treason." As servers and documents are seized, Twitter et al step up recruitment and snipe staff terrified of FBI agents constantly roaming around. Possible outcomes: Facebook quality drops significantly as they lose valuable staff; Facebook service gets disrupted and usage plummits as servers get taken at random, or entirely; Facebook gets a big, fat, "This Website has been serving Illegal Content" notices with the US seal on it. 3. Current admin uses social media to strongly promote the idea that Facebook is working against American interests. Pushes on Silicon Valley location, "presidential harassment," censorship of conservatives, etc. Starts a smear war. Facebook afraid to push back and thus "confirm" propaganda. Possible outcomes: Usage drops from a boycott (oh well?); radicalized militia/crazies start bombing / shooting up Facebook offices, Facebook forced to shut down US operations out of security concerns / staff flee en masse out of fear. I'm not claiming any of these have even more than a 20% chance of happening, it's just fun for me to explore the possibilities.
slang800 7y ago
> gives the government the authority Not authority, the article just claims that Hughes is giving them information to use when building their case.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  Wikipedia tells me Hughes hasn't been involved with Facebook for 12 years, since he left in 2007. A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun". Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago to get into a commanding position, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
  - harrumph 7y ago
    >A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun". I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination. >Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this? They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.
- bertil 7y ago
  I read this in a similar way as the Mueller hearing: there wasn’t anything added by having a senior civil servant be read his own findings in open court, and confirm that he did write that. Little of what Hugues can say, which is essentially his latest OpEds, gains being formally processed by the administration. But it gives press attention to an interesting effort, and Hugues can repeat what I think is his key point: Mark is a genuinely well-intended, value-driven and well-informed person; however, that doesn’t matter, monopolies are dangerous, even in the hands of Mr Rogers. And Hugues understand social media better than most regulators and can recommend better principles, like inter-operability, and give context, notably on abuse control.

The notion that a cofounder has some secret sauce that gives the government the authority and power to do something like this is a great way to drive clicks. But it ain't gonna break up facebook.

luckydata 7y ago

he definitely has context about how things work and help craft a better proposal.

lwb 7y ago
He left in 2007 ... the company has changed a lot since then.

maximente 7y ago

not on its own, but it could help move along anti-trust or whatever litigation: recall that an intel VP was brought in to testify against microsoft in that ordeal, so imagine what effects an insider with (presumably) evidence and an agenda could have.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
Seems to me it weakens any agrument as Hughes is not a neutral objective opinion. Certainly the DoJ can make a solid case sans some outlier.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Well, also recall that nothing happened to M$. There was no breakup because the courts laughed the government out of the room. In the end, they ended up having to negotiate with M$, and there was an agreement to allow other browsers on M$ operating systems. Basically it was laughable. But the law is the law. And that would be why we need to change the law. Going after digital companies using laws set up to regulate non-digital companies, is just the height of foolishness. You would think the M$ experience would have taught people? But I guess not.
- wskinner 7y ago
  In your opinion, what would have been the positive effects of breaking up Microsoft? Other browsers would have beaten explorer more quickly than they did? Something else?

throwaway2048 7y ago

The government doesn't need the authority and power, it already has it, Facebook could be turned off tomorrow if the government decided it wanted to do so. What it needs is a plan and motivation to do so. He can provide both in spades.

NeoBasilisk 7y ago
If you are down-voting this, you should probably take a hard look at your thought processes.
- smt88 7y ago
  OK, even though this is a dismissive, condescending, and content-free comment, I'll bite: What are some $200B+, publicly-traded companies that the government has "turned off"? Facebook has lots of qualities that make it impossible to kill on a whim: - Peter Thiel is influential in the current admin and also a FB investor - Many companies are spending millions a day on Facebook ads and may have pre-paid - Facebook login is a primary authentication scheme for many websites/apps (like Tinder) - Billions of irreplaceable photos are warehoused in Facebook You and GP are making the bolder claim by far, so the burden is on you to provide evidence.
  - komali2 7y ago
    Yea, I mean, it's extremely unlikely that Facebook will be "switched off." But, I think there are some possibilities that range from "extremely improbable" and "illegal / probably illegal" to merely "improbable." 1. Current admin declares "fake news" to be a national emergency. Demands Facebook turn over all keys to all databases. Democrats in Congress cry foul, Republicans are "concerned," until Facebook doesn't turn over the keys. Justice system gets involved, and then the debate turns from "extraordinary government overreach into free speech and privacy" into one about how a corporate is spitting in the face of American sovereignty and security, and "activist" judges, etc. Probable outcome: nothing happens because a Federal Judge in Hawaii says no. Possible Outcome: Facebook gets scared and hands over their data, tanking trust and usage. 2. Current admin orders a massive investigation into Facebook ties with Russia, throws around accusations like "spycraft" and "treason." As servers and documents are seized, Twitter et al step up recruitment and snipe staff terrified of FBI agents constantly roaming around. Possible outcomes: Facebook quality drops significantly as they lose valuable staff; Facebook service gets disrupted and usage plummits as servers get taken at random, or entirely; Facebook gets a big, fat, "This Website has been serving Illegal Content" notices with the US seal on it. 3. Current admin uses social media to strongly promote the idea that Facebook is working against American interests. Pushes on Silicon Valley location, "presidential harassment," censorship of conservatives, etc. Starts a smear war. Facebook afraid to push back and thus "confirm" propaganda. Possible outcomes: Usage drops from a boycott (oh well?); radicalized militia/crazies start bombing / shooting up Facebook offices, Facebook forced to shut down US operations out of security concerns / staff flee en masse out of fear. I'm not claiming any of these have even more than a 20% chance of happening, it's just fun for me to explore the possibilities.

slang800 7y ago

> gives the government the authority Not authority, the article just claims that Hughes is giving them information to use when building their case.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Wikipedia tells me Hughes hasn't been involved with Facebook for 12 years, since he left in 2007. A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun". Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago to get into a commanding position, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
- harrumph 7y ago
  >A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun". I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination. >Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this? They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.
bertil 7y ago
I read this in a similar way as the Mueller hearing: there wasn’t anything added by having a senior civil servant be read his own findings in open court, and confirm that he did write that. Little of what Hugues can say, which is essentially his latest OpEds, gains being formally processed by the administration. But it gives press attention to an interesting effort, and Hugues can repeat what I think is his key point: Mark is a genuinely well-intended, value-driven and well-informed person; however, that doesn’t matter, monopolies are dangerous, even in the hands of Mr Rogers. And Hugues understand social media better than most regulators and can recommend better principles, like inter-operability, and give context, notably on abuse control.