[ad_1]
On Thursday, Facebook's co-founder, Chris Hughes, wrote an editorial in The New York Times calling for the split of the company, saying that CEO Mark Zuckerberg "has focused on growth has led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks" and that he should be held responsible for the mistakes made by his company . Now, Facebook has responded to one of its own comments, saying that its size was not the real problem and that its success as a platform should not be punished.
Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of global affairs and communications, wrote the article and he agrees with Hughs that "companies should be held accountable for their actions" and that technology companies such as Facebook should not be the ones that all manage "important social, political and ethical issues" for the Internet.
But he notes that breaking Facebook – as Hughes asks – would be a bad choice. "The challenges he is referring to," writes Clegg, "including electoral interference and privacy protections, will not go away by smashing Facebook or any other big tech company." He then reiterated many of Facebook's usual talking points: a net positive for the world by connecting everyone, allowing businesses to thrive and allowing people to raise a lot of money for important causes in the world. whole world.
Zuckerberg also reacted to the comment in France, saying that "my main reaction was that [Hughes is] propose that we do nothing to help solve these problems. "
In particular, Clegg avoids what is probably the main focus of this editorial: Zuckerberg himself. Hughes notes that even though the CEO is a good person, he has far too much power on Facebook and can not be held responsible for it, he makes the decisions. "The government has to hold Mark to account," Hughes writes.
He rejects Hughes' argument that Facebook dominates the online world too much and counter-intuitively, claims that the company is not a monopoly, claiming that its revenues only represent 20% of the advertising market . In addition, Hughes misunderstands the antitrust law, and these laws are outdated and ineffective anyway.
Clegg argues that Facebook's size and scale are not the real issues – it's this size and scale that has allowed it to innovate and reach billions of people. It ticks the elements Facebook has been working on for two years: remove content related to terror and hatred, disrupt the efforts of foreign governments trying to ingest elections and protect user data. "It would be virtually impossible for a small business," he writes.
This remark underscores Hughes' point of view: none of these problems would be possible with a small business and all the problems that Facebook is trying to solve are exacerbated by the incredible reach of Facebook around the world. Problems will not "go away," but they could be a little easier to manage with a smaller footprint.
Updated May 11, 2019 at 13:53 ET: Updated to include Zuckerberg's separate comments.
[ad_2]
Source link