News
Why Breaking Up Facebook Is Bad: Business Insider Spoke Up
Would it be better to control only one instead of three?
Chris Hughes recently suggested that Facebook should be split up into three different companies to solve its monopolizing power and encourage competition. Hughes’ opinion and suggestion were not without proper consideration of what could be the risk because he was the co-founder since when Facebook was found in a Harvard dorm room.
After acquiring the two companies, Mark Zuckerberg and founders of the two companies had a fallout, leading to their exit from Facebook. Mark becomes the person that bears the highest voting power and shares in the company. He can simply use his voice to change decisions and has eyes into everything we do on Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp; messaging, calling, sending pictures, etc.
Nicholas Carlson from Business Insider US, however, has a different idea. Splitting up the three companies may, perhaps, keep his powers in check. It may encourage investors to begin considering new entries and allow other startup companies to grow. But it may lead to growth hacking and it’s like going back to square one.
There was a time when social media fights against each other, using every means to get as many users register as possible. What did it cost?
Our attention.
Ex-president of Facebook, Sean Parker, spoke up about how Facebook began by brainstorming one question: How do we get most of our users’ attention and consciousness? He continues, “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”
Chamath Palihapitiya who used to give seminars on how to use growth hacking and create a sustainable user acquisition engine now calls them a “Ponzi Scheme”.
By breaking up the companies, it will bring them back to their wild state of craving and fighting for our attention all the time. They have only one aim and one job. To make us addicted.
Carlson suggested that instead of having them split into three, let the government govern and control one that holds all three.
“Regulating Facebook, rather than breaking it up, would prevent another desperate competition for user attention and advertising dollars. In other words: growth hacking, or maybe something worse,” Carlson wrote.
