[jerf]

I see Facebook as a net negative to society. If a clumsy breakup plan instead destroyed them entirely... good.

It absolutely does make it easy for me to propose plans to break them up as a result, yes, because no, I'm not worried about how the parts may be viable afterwards.

I will admit this is not necessarily an appropriate attitude for a bureaucrat in charge of the breakup to take, but it's a valid attitude for Congress to take.

[tylerl]

That's not really the question. You kinda missed the whole point.

These companies exists because they serve a need. There's proven demand; killing Facebook will create a Facebook-shaped hole, which will immediately be filled by the most capable alternative.

In today's climate this almost certainly means that any American tech firm you destroy or break up will be replaced by the Chinese state-controlled equivalent, because at the moment they're the most capable existing competitor in most cases.

There are a few alternate potential outcomes, but all of the likely ones are just as bad or worse. The "break up tech giants" concept is very much like the "war on drugs" from years ago; it sounds like you're doing something good, but the end result can only be unmitigated disaster.

[Nasrudith]

Spite is a terrible way to run systems. It sets an even worse precedent that recalls the "Devil and Daniel Webster" speech about how you want laws protecting the devil himself for your own safety.

A bad break up would just be "Facebook split into Facebook, Bookface, and CountenanceLibre each with their own forks of related products" - the division which retains the domain names or the most memorable ones win.

I want Facebook to die off but not through giving politicians power to threaten companies into being enforcers of their whims.