What I really want to see is Meta getting irrelevant ON MERIT. People stop using Meta products, and then I want to see it die.
The problem is that with a nearly infinite amount of money, you are not going to get irrelevant on merit. You just buy up any company/talent that becomes a threat. They have done that with Instagram and WhatsApp (which was and is really huge in Europe etc.).
Didnt the judge rule literally yesterday that this wasnt illegal. This was one of Lina Khan's signature lawsuits, and judge didnt agree even a single one of FTC's arguments.
Just because something is not illegal does not make it a good thing. Judges have political ties and if the people in power dont want any monopoly laws, then there wont be any monopoly laws.
I think you might have a different definition of "merit" than OP. "Merit" to me means how much value the company brings to society. If I'm reading correctly about your point of it being legal, to you it seems like "merit" means how much value they bring to their investors.
Social media companies becoming more consolidated and influential might be legal and good for their stakeholders but it doesn't mean it's a net positive for the rest of the world. And unfortunately, as much as so many people like to believe otherwise, being a net negative to society absolutely does not lead to a company becoming irrelevant.
It is actually a monumental case ruling, and for some reason it wasnt reported or discussed here. Lina Khan's FTC has lost both their marquee cases now (Google, Meta)
> Meta won a landmark antitrust battle with the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday after a federal judge ruled it has not monopolized the social media market at the center of the case.
Wasn't the case here really weak to begin with? I remember reading the FTC's initial filings and they just sounded absurd. The very premise that Meta didn't face meaningful competition from TikTok was a farce.
I'm not very happy with Lina Khan after she killed our only remaining low cost airline carrier. And killed iRobot to let Roborock, a a Chinese company, take over.
She "stood up" to big tech, failed, and her remaining legacy is destroying American businesses that people actually relied on. Literally no value was added, but a bunch was subtracted. I never understood the hype for her.
If this is true, the case then becomes "Meta was a monopoly from start_date-tiktok_date" which isn't a very meaningful claim since they are not arguing it is a monopoly to be broken up.
Anyways, I disagree - this is not the case. If you read the filings and their slides, the FTC argues Meta is a monopoly in the personal networking space.
They essentially carve a market out of thin air to selectively exclude Snapchat, TikTok, and Shorts. The judge has understandably called this for what it is.
It was a phenomenally poorly litigated case, most experts at the time doubted it would succeed, but it did wonders for Lina Khan's popularity. Seems to have served her well with NYC and all.
Just to be clear, when you Khan "killed our remaining low cost airline carrier", are you referring to when the DOJ blocked the JetBlue-Spirit Airlines merger? Not arguing, I just want to understand.
The problem is that with a nearly infinite amount of money, you are not going to get irrelevant on merit. You just buy up any company/talent that becomes a threat. They have done that with Instagram and WhatsApp (which was and is really huge in Europe etc.).