I think it is the nature of certain services to centralize. Search engines, social networks. Unless someone forces them to inter-operate, it's winner takes all.
So you mandate inter-operation at the same time you break up the biggest, just like we've done with every other natural monopoly.
On the social network side full portability would mean being able to take your profile off of facebook but still having full interoperability with facebook so that users could still see your new posts and vice-versa.
That’s aside from the fact that whole idea is ridiculous to begin with.
The government of many countries have taken possession of many companies and land titles in the past for the benefit of society.
And what makes you think if the government did something like that Facebook wouldn’t just pack up and leave the country? They are a global company.
Government has to be broken down to pieces. I think it has reached a state where it cannot be allowed to continue as a single government being able to observe/monitor public and private communication / social interaction of so many people and not being regulated and controlled by market forces.
To be more precise in regards to your question. I want to live in the world where internet and social networks are businesses that don't rely on the government good will.
I would prefer there to be no great firewall of China and the great firewall of US and Europe as it is forming right now.
I know that is a losing battle. But we should fight for internet being a place without nationalistic restrictions that is able to operate without corrupt people in power being able to force their worldview upon us.
The abuse of the Commerce clause has expanded the regulatory power of the federal government almost unilaterally.
So yes, to answer your question - I would definitely would apply the same logic to government.
The biggest problem of big companies is when they hurt consumers with predatory practices.
With Facebook I fail to see how that's the case. Everybody is perfectly capable of not being hurt by their own accord by just no using it.
If the problem is how it influences politics and government, I think that's even a point against letting the government mess with it, as it is a power that can be easily misused by the party in power.
I'm against someone deciding that I cannot do something because it can be bad for me.
You don't live in a vacuum or a state with a population of one. If your actions have consequences - and most do, even if it's only through the socialized pooling effect of insurance - then there is a moral argument for society to regulate them.
Personally I'm more of a fan of utilitarian thinking that takes into account second and third order effects. It's not enough to regulate X because X is bad; you need to look at what X is currently displacing, black market effects, underlying demand. But it's just silly to deny the moral legitimacy of regulation in itself - we all live in a society and it's childishly selfish to think you can just do as you please. It's prohibitively expensive to capture all the externalities of our actions, so we regulate instead.
Poor people don't have a direct choice. Fat people don't complain about beeing fat. And opiod addicts can get help easily.
Nothing even remotely similar to just not using Facebook.
I also don't miss events or pictures. Facebook is not everything. Never was. There is this thing called communication which works pretty well when you quit facebook
Don’t play with a ouija board so much because I think you’re possessed by the ghost of Ayn Rand.
If you like Facebook just keep using it. Nobody will mind.
Here’s an example from couple of years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/17/facebook-pro-k...
I think by blocking these people, Facebook violated the first amendment, and probably even conspired with a foreign totalitarian government.
In US laws however, Facebook is free to do whatever they want with the data stored on the servers they own. Also the blocked people have accepted EULA. So, according to the letter of law, FB probably did nothing wrong.
No, the biggest problem of big companies is when they stifle innovation and competition in order to maintain an unchanging cycle of use and purchase.