I'm not sure why this isn't considered anti-competitive behavior. Once a communication company has 1-billion users perhaps we need to classify them as a more of a utility and hold them to stricter standards of openness.
back
2 comments
> why this isn't considered anti-competitive behavior
Considered by who? Setting aside the 2021-2024 Lina Khan anomaly, the US Federal government has not enforced anti-trust law for decades, and the States do not have enough power to create their own anti-trust laws. We also just elected an extremely big-tech-friendly government, so that won't be changing for the foreseeable future.
States are governments too and a lot of them are suing big tech.
It remains to be seen how big-tech friendly the incoming Trump administration will be, but friendlier than Biden’s would be a low bar to clear.
Probably why Zuck is getting all cozy with the incoming administration - to see to it that something like this won't happen.
He has three hundred million reasons to "cozy up" to it. Trump believes (and not without evidence) that he lost in 2020 because of $300M+ Zuckerberg spent on electing Biden. Really difficult times could be ahead for Meta - Trump is extremely vindictive. I strongly suspect Musk will be "cozying up" to the next administration similarly in 2028, or outbidding everyone else again. Neither Zuck bucks, nor Musk bucks bode well for democracy, IMO.
> Trump is extremely vindictive
He’s cultivated an aura of vindictiveness. I’m not recalling any great examples of him being unpragmatically vindictive.
Isn't Facebook's investors the same as the VP? I suspect FB & Whitehouse are closer in ties in 2024 than 2020 or 2016 based on that and less about the red vs blue theatrics of politics.
yep, he could have done a number on hillary but didn't.
Not against businesses, but he did destroy several political dynasties by now: Romneys, Clintons, Bushes, some argue even Obama's minions are dead in the water. In Zuck's case there are plenty of 100% legitimate issues the Trump administration could (and IMO should) legitimately bring up against Meta. Indeed, they could bring up the exact same issues that the Biden administration was already bringing up, but ratchet things up a notch or two. If Zuck insufficiently bends the knee, that's what's going to happen. So far I see his efforts as half-hearted, and I'm not even Trump. Trump would see them as laughable at best, or even insulting.
> he did destroy several political dynasties by now: Romneys, Clintons, Bushes, some argue even Obama's minions are dead in the water
This isn’t vindictive, though. In some cases it was straight-up competition.
> If Zuck insufficiently bends the knee, that's what's going to happen
This is transactional, possibly corruptly so. But it’s not really revenge as much as exerting control. If there were nothing Zuckerberg could reasonably do to avoid Trump’s wrath on account of what Zuck did in 2020, that would be vindictiveness.
Those dynasties - problematic as they inherently are - have survived presidencies in both parties over the decades. I would argue its destruction and I'm pretty sure folks like Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham when they think no one is listening, would agree. They've bent so far and so deeply to stay afloat.
Cruz and Graham know all too well that they will politically outlive Trump and whoever comes next. They look at each occupant of the White House like it is a future ex-wife, get good prenups, milk it for the good times and wait out for the next one. They could generally care less who is there and they know it, suck up a bit and ride it out :)
Michael Cohen has a story about the DOJ -
on July 9, 2020, was taken back into federal custody after refusing to agree to conditions of home confinement that included a prohibition on communicating with the media. Cohen filed suit complaining that his re-arrest was an attempt to prevent him from releasing a tell-all book about Trump titled Disloyal: A Memoir. On July 23, a judge found in his favor and ordered that he be returned to home confinement.