this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
715 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

69109 readers
2352 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, and/or that they raised prices or reduced quality because they knew they didn't have to fear competitors.

It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it. What am I, a mind-reader? But imagine for a second that the corporation in the dock is a global multinational. Now, imagine that the majority of the voting shares in that company are held by one man, who has served as the company's CEO since the day he founded it, personally calling every important shot in the company's history.

Now imagine that this founder/CEO, this accused monopolist, was an incorrigible blabbermouth, who communicated with his underlings almost exclusively in writing, and thus did he commit to immortal digital storage a stream – a torrent – of memos in which he explicitly confessed his guilt.

Ladies and gentlepersons, I give you Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (nee Facebook), an accused monopolist who cannot keep his big dumb fucking mouth shut.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 62 points 2 days ago

For anyone, like me, confused by the title: no verdict has been reached, and the trial expected to last for about seven more weeks.

Wouldn’t it be fun if one day a year every billionaire had to go without bodyguards ?

Do you think the rest of the year they would act differently?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 217 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The only crime he committed was not bribing the Trump administration enough to stay off the anti-trust radar. I hope they burn it all to the ground.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 100 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I'd say the crime he committed was thinking Trump would keep his promise even after bribing him.

How anyone can trust this motherfucker is beyond me.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 28 points 3 days ago

Trump declared moral bankruptcy decades ago.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago

There’s still time to bribe the old man.

[–] cotlovan@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Are you implying that he bribed the previous administrations, as nothing happened until now?

[–] GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Well, FOIA requests revealed Facebook was extremely cooperative with both enacting government censorship requests, and keeping them secret, when those same censorship requests would have been utterly illegal if they were an official order, so...

Some deal like "You give us control over information and we leave your monopoly alone", even unspoken, seems to be the gist of it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 58 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean it's nice that he had a bad day, but ain't shit gonna happen other than the legal fees.

[–] primemagnus@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 days ago

None of which affects his bottom line regardless as the company itself absorbs the loss. He can run his mouth and it’s 10k jobs that get cut and everyone else works that much harder to keep up.

People that wield so much power without consequence or control is everything that is wrong with everything.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why not? Can't it lead to Meta breakup?

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trump's first administration filed the lawsuit that led to the court determination that Google held a search monopoly. The result of that is the DOJ filed a proposal that Google sell chrome web browser to another entity. Google has been fighting this proposal tooth and nail.

So the answer is, I'll believe Meta gets broken up when I see it.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (5 children)

We're in post law society, I can't even believe the trump admin is going after tech giants. So i believe anything is possible here. I can't imagine anything the admin does will be good for society so maybe its safe to assume they will be broken up so elon can buy a chunk?

[–] djsp@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I can't even believe the trump admin is going after tech giants.

I share the disbelief. I think it is mostly a power play against not just Google, but all tech giants, which must be watching this closely, given most of them operate in a similarly anticompetitive manner: kiss the ring or else. The Trump administration could give Google reprieve in exchange for axing DEI further and helping push their political agenda.

I can't imagine anything the admin does will be good for society so maybe its safe to assume they will be broken up so elon can buy a chunk?

I think so too: if Google doesn't satisfy Trump and his administration, parts of it will be forcibly sold as private equity, outside of shareholder scrutiny and beyond the reach of the SEC. Such a private company would be easier to control than a publicly traded one.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yea i guess the most simple explanation, that is most coherent with the rest of the administration's actions, is that it's just a mob style shake down of every major economic player. Pure extortion as the japanese said.

But ya its funny to see the SEC and DOJ neutered and then actually used against big tech. Ironic and poetic, and fucking stupid. It really burns at the senses, and creates confusion.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Clanket@lemmy.world 60 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Please, please, make them sell WhatsApp.

[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 26 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Signal: "I'm right over here, guys! Just click on me, install me, tell your friends. Hellooo!"

[–] TheodorAlforno@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'd love to have people move over to other apps. But here in Germany it's nearly impossible to have a messenger group on any other app than WhatsApp. Everybody is on there. For every other app there will be someone not having it installed. It doesn't matter if 80% are on Signal, 80% in Threema and 80% on Telegram. 100% are on Whatsapp and that's what the group will be using.

[–] Clanket@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It's the same in Ireland, WhatsApp is pervasive. It was a great app until Zuck bought it. It's still a good app but I hate using anything by him.

[–] horse@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago

That's not been my experience at all (also in Germany). Signal is super popular, especially with younger people (under 40). I don't have a Whatsapp account and it's super rare for it to be an issue.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago

To a non US company please.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 74 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Zuck emailed Facebook execs, writing:

[Instagram's growth is] really scary and why we might want to consider paying a lot of money for this.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Wait....I haven't been following the story. Why is him buying Instagram a bad thing legally?

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 86 points 3 days ago

Buying your competitors is a pretty monopolistic practice

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 81 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can’t buy a company with the intent to stifle competition.

They tried to compete with insta and failed, and he was concerned with insta’s potential to create features that compete with fb.

He then said the plan was to invest as little as possible in insta and only add features if competition sprouted up.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Other than the fact that it happens all the time and nothing happens because, as OP mentioned, most people aren't dumb enough to put it in writing

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 2 days ago

If you buy all the competition, you can set the price/rules.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 58 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 69 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What's even funnier is that he'll pay a relatively insignificant fine, and be able to continue and profit from the monopoly.

Corporate dictatorships masquerading as "democracy" is FUN!

Blessed be the profit margins. May the lord open.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It’s very hard to actually get a company broken up and I can’t remember ever seeing it happen. But when your antitrust case is judged against you, they don’t just charge you a fine and say “on your way now.”

[–] klemptor@startrek.website 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah somehow Microsoft dodged it in 2001 which is pretty mind-boggling because they were supreme at that point

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah office should have been split and MSN too. But we have had oligarchs calling the shot for eons.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago

The ATT orientation video about that is hilarious. It shows how Ma Bell was broken up, and then it just circles back around to it coming back together. On a map, with arrows lol

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah, Ma Bell breaking up into the Baby Bells is the only real example I can think of, and even they came back together later (though, by then, there was enough diversity in the market that they couldn't reclaim the level of market dominance they once had)

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Proof that rich does not mean smart

You love to see it

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

He's smart, but not wise. When you don't know everything and don't know what you don't know, you act carefully. When it comes to the law, you should be extra careful and he should have had attorneys that advised him again putting this shit in writing.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn't matter if you put it in writing, but that's not how you become a billionaire.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I'm with you. For the record, I was not advising people to act unethically, just surprised he wasn't better at it.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I mean, every time we hire a new manager (not high level mind you) we tell them that whatever they communicate digitally, they better be comfortable with it being read in court.

Billionaires really have fuck you level of money. They just don’t care to think at all, and they’re okay with that. Gross.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Only way this would matter is if they were forced to sell or spin off Instagram and Whatsapp.

It would be very strange at this point to not see him be forced to spin them off. I mean, this is the trump admin. Anything is possible, but this is egregious (and also it would benefit musk if he was forced to do so)

load more comments
view more: next ›