Facebook Co-founder Thinks We Should Break Up Facebook

Reading Time: 9 minutes.

Chris Hughes is the current co-chairman of the Economic Security Project as well as a senior adviser at the Roosevelt Institute. He’s also a Facebook co-founder. Hughes believes that Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, has too much power. He believes that, if unregulated, Facebook is a threat to American democracy. We must break up the company and legislate dangerous speech. Continuing to allow fake news and hate speech to thrive on the platform is akin to yelling fire in a theater or allowing the spread of child pornography.

“The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.”

– Chris Hughes, Facebook co-founder

As it turns out, Mark Zuckerberg himself has expressed a similar sentiment. Earlier this year, Zuckerberg stated that, “Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and I agree.”

Facebook’s co-founder hasn’t worked with the company for some time. He has also completely divested, so his interest isn’t in a stock split. Hughes just wants to see American innovation and democracy protected. That’s why he’s calling out the monster he helped create.

The Power Facebook Has

Affecting Politics

Posts on Facebook lead to the election of Donald Trump. That’s not just conjecture. Facebook’s algorithms were gamed by Russian influencers to make Donald Trump the president of the United States. Before the election, fake news was more common on Facebook than real news. Facebook’s algorithms favored fake news, putting it at the top of people’s feeds. This was because fake news was more engaging. Facebook didn’t realize they were promoting fake news, only that the stories drove a lot of controversy. Facebook says they’ve learned their lesson, but America’s democracy was subverted by a foreign power, and Facebook was the biggest vehicle of that attack.

Elizabeth Warren called for change. She wants the government to enforce anti-trust laws and break up large tech companies. Warren, like many other politicians, relies on Facebook for broadcasting their message. But, shortly after her announcement, Facebook blocked and removed some of her ads. It caused a firestorm among journalists. Facebook said it was a mistake, that they only removed it because the ads had Facebook’s logo in it. However, not only is Facebook rarely enforcing this, the Facebook logo was not included in a deceptive way, and it was clearly an illustration of the logo. It was clear who the message was coming from, Senator Warren. Facebook proved exactly how much power they have and why the government needs to step in while it still can.

Enabling Hate

Of course, while Americans will have to live with the terrors of Trump and his judicial appointments for decades, we got off lucky compared to Facebook’s other victims. The U.N. concluded a report on the genocide in Myanmar. They found Facebook was a key factor in spreading hate speech and coordinating violence against the Rohingya people. Facebook didn’t invent Islamophobic hate, but they gave it a platform so powerful that it lead to genocide.

In Germany, researchers found that hate crimes drop during power outages. Upon further investigations, they found that those hate crimes simply drop when Facebook is down. If people can’t get Facebook, they’re less likely to commit hate crimes.

How utterly depressing is that?

Facebook hasn’t taken a hardline stance against hate speech on the platform because they fear it will upset Republicans. That’s why, despite horrifically Islamophobic remarks, Donald Trump remains on Facebook.

The Sheer Size of Facebook

Let’s stop to take a look at the awesome power Facebook wields. Facebook has 2.3 billion monthly active users. The population of the planet is around 7 billion people. If you add up all of Facebook’s monthly active users from Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp, it’s greater than other large popular social networks combined. This isn’t necessarily unique users, just users who use the platforms. More people make Facebook properties a part of their monthly routine than any other large social network combined. If YouTube or Twitter can’t come close to Facebook, what hope does anyone else have?

Squashing Competition

Facebook is a giant that’s squashing competition between its toes. Its sheer size makes it difficult to leave. “But all my friends are here!” Leaving Facebook feels like moving to a new country. Suddenly there’s a part of your correspondence with your friends that is just gone. A fraction of those friends may be on Twitter or Snapchat, but it won’t be the same. You won’t plan events with them, you won’t have group chats with all your friends. You’ll be missing out just because it would take a coordinated effort to get off Facebook without losing access to your friends.

This happened to Vine. The social network didn’t last long, despite its popularity, because it was little more than an anonymous feed of short clips. You followed celebrities and comedians, not your friends. That’s because Facebook didn’t allow Vine to use Facebook login information to find friends on the network. This is a feature Facebook will allow companies to use, get data on your friends so the new service can match you up with them. Tinder uses it. However, because Vine would be competing with Facebook, they blocked it, squashing the competition. Facebook has a monopoly and they’re not afraid to swing that power around like a giant club.

Vine was an innovative service. Facebook squashed that innovation, and hasn’t been able to fit a replacement for it into Instagram or Facebook yet. It was unique, a true innovation. Now it’s gone. That’s just one innovative business that could have pushed technology forward, gone forever. There have been many more.

Data as Leverage

In the past, Facebook would also allow certain friends of Facebook (or Zuckerberg) to use Facebook’s data. If the service wasn’t a competitor to Facebook they wouldn’t get access to Facebook’s data. If they were helping Facebook, say, by installing the Facebook app by default on new phones, they’d bend the rules and give them more access to data. Facebook used their data like a weapon, and it worked.

Buy the Competition

Facebook has another option. They can buy the competition. Some time ago, they bought a VPN service. It wasn’t clear why. However, they used the service to track and log users’ browsing habits outside of Facebook. They found that Instagram and WhatsApp were their biggest competitors, showing the largest growth and engagement. So, Facebook bought them.

However, Facebook’s so big now, they don’t even have to offer billions. They can offer a small pittance, telling owners they can either accept the money or get destroyed and end up with nothing. Facebook’s stealing startups’ lunch money and giving them some stale bread as a consolation prize. Because of their monopoly and their size, they have no reason not to.

Copy the Competition

If a would-be competitor, like Snapchat, won’t sell, Facebook simply copies their idea. Instagram stories and Facebook stories cropped up from the popular Snapchat feature. In fact, Zuckerberg encouraged this kind of copying, telling employees they shouldn’t be too proud to copy.

With Facebook’s huge number of engineers, they can quickly copy or squash new ideas. Competitors can try to out-innovate Facebook, but they’re fighting an uphill battle. As it is, I can honestly say I’ve used Snapchat less since Instagram got stories. It’s just too convenient to have everything in one place. Most users agree. Since more people are on Instagram and it’s easier to find your friends thanks to the Facebook integration, Instagram is the go-to spot for live video, stories, and photos.

How Chris Hughes Wants to Regulate It

Hughes has two main actions he wants the government to take against Facebook.

Break Facebook Up

First, he believes Facebook should be broken up. This would be a surprisingly easy task. Facebook has been operating Instagram and WhatsApp mostly separately from the core organization. These would be split out into new companies. Facebook’s top board would have to divest from the new companies, but other current Facebook share holders would receive a portion of each new company. For them, it would operate much like a stock split, but with better diversification. The end result is usually profitable for investors.

The United States has broken up many companies. From monopolistic railroad companies, to Standard Oil, and even AT&T. In fact, without breaking up AT&T and forbidding them from operating in the burgeoning computing sector, the technology boom of the 50’s into the 80’s would likely not have happened. By breaking up AT&T, the government made room for innovation and new companies.

The government already knows how to do this. However, in the 70’s a right-wing idea, fueled by large corporations, started to take hold. Since then, the United States has neglected to regulate businesses, leading to the dot com bubble burst and the 2008 economic crash.

Regulate Facebook

“If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity.”

– John Sherman, Ohio Republican, 1890

Secondly, Hughes thinks Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have too much power, especially when it comes to controlling free speech and influencing elections. Zuckerberg’s inaction on hate speech and fake news got Donald Trump elected. But what if that’s what he wanted? He could easily influence news stories we’re exposed to and get puppet politicians in power. There’s no regulation to stop him. The man who would be king of America isn’t a politician, he’s a kid from Harvard with a social network.

What would these laws look like? They’d ban hate speech, as it incites violence. They’d go further to ensure that platforms are protecting people from increased risks of violence due to their services. Right now, you can’t shout “fire” in a theater. Hate speech has the same outcome, and should be regulated the same way.

We regulate food, drugs, insurance, banking, all to keep consumers safe. Researchers have proven that Facebook has the capacity to manipulate people’s moods. It also directly causes a rise in violence. How can we sit back and allow this dangerous and misused power to continue to go unchecked?

Facebook’s more afraid of the anti-trust case than any legislation causing them to be more strict about the content on their platform. However, Hughes argues, both are needed.

Who Would Regulate?

This is also important. Hughes believes an independent committee made up of legislators with knowledge of technology would be best for policing social networks. They’d best be capable of carving through Zuckerberg’s smooth talk, ignoring lobbyists, and ensuring networks play by the rules. This isn’t a job for just any senator, especially those confused about how the internet works or what Facebook even is. No, this is a job for people who understand and use technology, and want to ensure that it’s a net benefit for humanity, not the source of violence and hatred.

The Effect This Would Have

With this out of the way, Facebook as it is now would be three separate companies. They could still work together, ensuring consumers don’t notice a difference, but Facebook’s ability to disable startups and other companies would be gone. Investors would be able to see greater returns, consumers will have more choices for social networking, and user privacy will become a greater priority.

On the side of hate speech and fake news filtering, Facebook would become less harmful to safety and democracy. It wouldn’t just be Facebook either. Other social networks would have to crack down on hate speech, violent content, and live recordings of murders or suicides. Fake news stories wouldn’t end up at the top of your news feed, and social networks would again become places to interact with friends and family.

Drawbacks

With Facebook no longer a behemoth, competitors could pop up. This would be a good thing, but it could also turn disastrous. What if there’s a liberal and a conservative social network, effectively creating more opaque ideological bubbles than what we have now? This would be a niche market, and likely wouldn’t take off. A few conservatives have already tried this, making social networks that don’t ban hate speech, but they’re only populated by extreme right-wing nutcases. They can’t last. Furthermore, once they’re influential enough, they’d have to follow the same anti-violence laws as everyone else, and, without hate speech, what would the network exist for?

The other potential drawback is related to AI research. Yes, we know that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and others are gobbling up your personal data. They’re doing this to sell ads and products, but they’re also performing an important task. They’re using that data to research AI. That AI is going to be vitally important for the future international tech sector. If American companies don’t keep up, we could risk China surpassing us.

However, with more innovation in this sector, we could find smaller companies who can come up with more creative solutions using smaller datasets. This is the true holy grail of AI, simpler models, removing bias, and extrapolating based on limited data. I’d argue that, by allowing greater innovation, we’d also see better uses of AI. We’d push American companies forward.

Finally, the government has made investments in technology for decades. Why would AI be any different? They’d finally have the power to push scientists and innovators forward.

Should We Break Up Facebook?

“Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American.”

– Chris Hughes, Facebook co-founder

In my opinion, the answer is clear: yes. These laws are on the books for a reason. Every time anti-trust laws have been used, it fostered a newfound innovation. Improved rail travel, alternative energy, computers, even the internet may be able to thank anti-trust laws for their inception. Facebook’s not alone. Apple is blocking third party music and news apps. They play by different rules than their own competition. Right now, you have limited choices in smartphones, and only two choices for OS.

There are monopolies all around us, and they’re harming innovation. Just look at the tech sector. Has it really changed much since 2010? Has the past decade really changed how we actually interact with technology? Perhaps we’ve gotten more social, and AI is starting to take off, but these developments have been slow. Force competition into these markets and we’ll see an explosion of creative new ideas.

What About Regulation?

Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other networks spread hate speech. They directly contribute to and cause acts of violence. Facebook even hosted the Christchurch shooting, and allowed the shooter to livestream his massacre, inspiring others to do similar crimes. We can’t pretend all forms of speech deserve equal protection. Just as we can’t shout fire in a theater, so too should we be prevented from shouting “We need to ban Muslims!” Both lead to harm, both lead to violence, and the connection between the two is clear and proven.

Hate speech hampers free speech. It prevents the oppressed from speaking up in fear of violence. These are unique points of view that the hateful are silencing. Just as Facebook squashes small companies, hate speech squashes marginalized views.

We need to break up Facebook and regulate what’s left. One of Facebook’s co-founders thinks so, and, to some degree, so does Mark Zuckerberg. It’s time to made decisions to protect consumers and foster a free market and free speech.

“Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.”

– Chris Hughes, Facebook co-founder

---

Sources

• Robert Booth, The Guardian
• Chris Hughes, The New York Times
• Michelle Mark and Associated Press, Business Insider
• Chris Morris, Fortune