FB told IG influencers they might lose their verified status if they link to a SC profile? Seems like that was a mistake on their part, could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?
Please don't insinuate astroturfing without evidence; this is in the site guidelines because it's so common, off-topic, and undermining of community.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I we go by the pattern of behavior at Facebook, it really doesn't seem like the decision makers consider much in the way of anti-trust or much of anything.
The pattern is well established and their version of move fast and break things is almost entirely off the rails.
I mean, I understand that verification of one's identity may not be that simple to do technologically, and yet, it seems more and more like they're not even trying to help bring more humanity to their platforms.
This doesn't feel like some altruistic, whistle-blowing gesture for the good of the consumer. This feels like Snap being pissy that there is a bigger bully on the playground.
I'm not saying what Facebook is doing is okay, because it's not, but Snap has a vested interest in FBs demise and Spiegel and Zuckerburg have their own pissing match. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for either company in this issue.
The DOJ antitrust people and the FTC got a lot of their teeth knocked out when they went after Microsoft in the 1990s. However, you think conservatives would be more open to the possibility of using antitrust as a cudgel against social media companies that seem intolerant toward right-wing viewpoints. (Never mind that the end of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine helped enable the rise of right-wing media in the first place.)
How do you mean? Microsoft got throughly declawed in the 90s, and never regained their top predator status.
But at least all their scuzzy business practices were put to light, and they weren't able to behave that way anymore.
No, most of us actually welcome diversity of thought, and free expression of opposing ideas. Typically we don't want Big Brother to tell us, or anyone else what to do or how to do it.
Big Brother is just some guys or gals; like the crew that hung out in the parking lot at the mall, and after all--who the fuck are they anyway to tell us what to do, or how to do it??
Because there are apps called Android Remote, Android TV, Google formerly had a an Android Wear app and plenty of Remote Desktop apps that mention Android.
It's almost certainly a reflection of a culture who's motto was/maybe still is "move fast and break stuff." I think the idea of existential consequences for actions is relatively new one for FB (and to a lesser extent Google) and your seeing a company not move fast enough and a CEO who is probably a little bit underarmed when it comes to really understanding the stakes of certain types of public perception.
I've learned to accept it as is, and not to worry about it too much.
It sounds like a conspiracy, but it's possible. You know the old saying about "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"