Mark Zuckerberg subtly pleaded not to break Facebook

Image: BOB AL-GREENE / MASHABLE

It's not hard to understand why Mark Zuckerberg loves Augustus Caesar, who consolidates the empire.

The 3,300-word note released Thursday by Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook's approach to voter interference contained surprisingly straightforward information about why Facebook had made some business decisions. For example, Zuckerberg said that he planned to ban political ads all together (but decided not to do so). And that he was only opening the platform to some researchers because Facebook is now suspicious of abuse; thanks, Aleksandr Kogan!

But a more subtle section appeared in Zuckerberg's section on fake accounts. The founder of the billionaire said that owning several social media companies – including Instagram and WhatsApp – made it easy to close fake accounts on all platforms. In other words, he said that we had better not break Facebook or that it could hurt the integrity of our democracy.

Here is the complete quote from the letter:

One advantage of Facebook is that we have the principle that you must use your true identity. This means that we have a clear notion of what is an authentic account. It's harder with services like Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, YouTube, iMessage or any other service for which you do not need to provide your true identity. So, if the shared content does not violate any policies, which is often the case, and you have no clear idea of ​​what constitutes a false account, it makes application more difficult. Fortunately, our systems are shared, so when we find bad actors on Facebook, we can also delete related accounts on Instagram and WhatsApp. And when we can share information with other companies, we can also help them remove fake accounts.

Facebook actually owns WhatsApp and Instagram, but also companies like Oculus and CrowdTangle, and it has absorbed a lot of others. In recent months, grumblings have proliferated over the possibility that Facebook has amassed through mergers and acquisitions. And there is a surge behind the idea that the government should split Facebook into a monopoly.

In April, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said that Facebook had to make changes or risk being broken. In May, a coalition of unions and progressive organizations came together to form the Freedom from Facebook coalition, whose main demand is to control the power of Facebook by separating its various social networks from the mothership. Many editorials have argued (and against) to break Facebook. A New York Attorney General's candidate has promised to check if Facebook is breaking antitrust laws. And Zuckerberg was even faced with questions as to whether Facebook was a monopoly in his appearance before Congress and the European Parliament.

To be clear, breaking Facebook would be very, very bad for Facebook. Instagram has recently been valued at $ 100 million. And while Facebook's growth, especially among young people, is declining, Instagram remains one of The Youth's favored platforms. And Facebook is starting to seriously monetize WhatsApp as it becomes more popular, and has begun to take Facebook's place as the primary way to get information.

If on. Zuckerberg talks about national and democratic security here. But with the unwillingness and questions that continue to arise on the power of Facebook, all Zuckerberg pros can afford to keep Facebook a unified platform.

See you, Zuck. The FTC too.