> allegations of bad faith, which, optimistically, might have been alleviated by a link to an article like this one.
But Ben, you're on the same side as her ideologically. You also think Facebook hasn't done enough.
It is absolutely in bad faith. Haugen is no "whistleblower", she's just another intolerant tyrant, being elevated and glorified by people with confirmation bias.
Even if it is only the irresistible attraction of two-sided markets, Facebook's dominance suppresses new social networks and online communication channels that would compete for user attention and result in better services.
I would point to the stagnation in services like "ICQ", "Google Talk", "Skype", "Skype for Business", "AOL Messenger", "MSN Messenger", "AOL Messenger", "Facebook Messenger", "Paltalk", "Go2Meeting", "Zoom", ...
If you look really closely you see signs of progress, but the usual conversation goes like.
I'd like you to try service B.
Why should I?
Remember Service A?
It sucks now
Well service B works as well as service A did back in the day, you should try it!
You see telephone service getting better over time (1G through 5G cellular service, smartphones, better cameras) because an Android customer can call an iPhone customer, because a Verizon customer can call a T-Mobile customer. Phone vendors compete to make better phones, carriers compete to run better networks because they interoperate.
If they don't interoperate then "competition" is just a matter of having the biggest network and letting two-sided markets keep competition away. You end up with the old AT&T which couldn't deliver new and improved services to customers even though it had PhD's who developed missile defense systems, million-fold improvements in inter-city bandwidth, UNIX, etc.
2 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 12.1 ms ] threadBut Ben, you're on the same side as her ideologically. You also think Facebook hasn't done enough.
It is absolutely in bad faith. Haugen is no "whistleblower", she's just another intolerant tyrant, being elevated and glorified by people with confirmation bias.
Her aims are entirely in line with Facebooks.
Even if it is only the irresistible attraction of two-sided markets, Facebook's dominance suppresses new social networks and online communication channels that would compete for user attention and result in better services.
I would point to the stagnation in services like "ICQ", "Google Talk", "Skype", "Skype for Business", "AOL Messenger", "MSN Messenger", "AOL Messenger", "Facebook Messenger", "Paltalk", "Go2Meeting", "Zoom", ...
If you look really closely you see signs of progress, but the usual conversation goes like.
You see telephone service getting better over time (1G through 5G cellular service, smartphones, better cameras) because an Android customer can call an iPhone customer, because a Verizon customer can call a T-Mobile customer. Phone vendors compete to make better phones, carriers compete to run better networks because they interoperate.If they don't interoperate then "competition" is just a matter of having the biggest network and letting two-sided markets keep competition away. You end up with the old AT&T which couldn't deliver new and improved services to customers even though it had PhD's who developed missile defense systems, million-fold improvements in inter-city bandwidth, UNIX, etc.