[mfer]

> This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect

If FB is doing anti-competitive things than disruption is needed. It's not meant to be comfortable.

Companies are really good at learning the playing field and then gaming it for their benefits. Tweaks to laws are often easy to work around. Disruption that stops an illegal monopoly is going to be uncomfortable. Especially at first.

But, it opens the door for the future in ways that aren't options today.

[TheRealNGenius]

*then

[efwfwef]

But the product provides real value to real people today, why disrupt this? Also weren't these companies free to not accept an acquisition?

[jzoch]

Andrew Carnegie provided far more real, unquestionable value to people too. It ended up being worth it. The same can be said for Leland Stanford or most other monopolies. They didn't become monopolies by not providing value.

[will_pseudonym]

> Andrew Carnegie provided far more real, unquestionable value to people too. It ended up being worth it. The same can be said for Leland Stanford or most other monopolies. They didn't become monopolies by not providing value.

Absolutely. The same could also be said of the closest parallel of Facebook in history, the Bell System.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

[hef19898]

Because move fast and brake things? Disruption good?

No, seriously, modern tech companies are an anti-trust challenge that was not truely forseen in existing anti-trust laws. That governments are now trying to find answers is a good thing.