The government’s legal attack on Meta is not effectively addressing the company’s power.
Mark Zuckerberg testified in court defending Meta against being broken up by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The FTC has misunderstood how social media works, particularly when it comes to defining the market and identifying competitors.
The FTC defines a “personal social networking service” as an app that primarily facilitates sharing between friends and family, but excludes private messaging apps.
The government’s narrow definition of the market gives Meta a monopoly in a subset of social media services, with only Snapchat and MeWe (a small, obscure platform) as competitors.
The government should be scrutinizing Meta’s power. Unfortunately, its legal attack isn’t cutting to the heart of what keeps Meta big.
This week, I spent three days in a Washington, DC courtroom watching Mark Zuckerberg testify. He was there defending his company from being broken up by the Federal Trade Commission, which is seeking to unwind his acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp on the grounds that they were anticompetitive. At times, he was made uncomfortable and challenged with evidence that he wanted to “neutralize” rivals. Primarily, what I observed was the FTC’s misunderstanding of how social media works.
To establish the market it argues Meta has a monopoly in, the FTC has defined a subset of social media that it calls “personal social networking services.” This category includes apps that primarily facilitate sharing between friends and family, but for some reason, doesn’t include private messaging apps. The government argues that Meta’s only competitors in this market are Snapchat and MeWe, an obscure, blockchain-based social network that claims to have 20 million users. Conveniently for the FTC, including only these two companies gives Meta a de fac …
Q. Why is the government scrutinizing Meta’s power?
A. The government should be scrutinizing Meta’s power because it has a significant impact on the social media landscape.
Q. What was Mark Zuckerberg testifying about in the Washington, DC courtroom?
A. Mark Zuckerberg was testifying to defend his company from being broken up by the Federal Trade Commission due to anticompetitive concerns related to its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
Q. How did the FTC define the market that Meta has a monopoly in?
A. The FTC defined a subset of social media called “personal social networking services,” which excludes private messaging apps, but includes only Snapchat and MeWe as competitors.
Q. Why didn’t the FTC include private messaging apps in its definition of the market?
A. The reason for this exclusion is not explicitly stated in the text, but it appears to be a deliberate choice by the FTC that has been criticized as misleading.
Q. Who are Meta’s main competitors in the “personal social networking services” market?
A. According to the FTC, Meta’s only competitors in this market are Snapchat and MeWe, an obscure blockchain-based social network with 20 million users.
Q. What was Mark Zuckerberg trying to achieve by testifying in court?
A. Mark Zuckerberg was trying to defend his company against the FTC’s allegations of anticompetitive behavior and demonstrate that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were not problematic.
Q. Why did the author attend the courtroom hearing?
A. The author attended the courtroom hearing to observe Mark Zuckerberg testify and gain a better understanding of the issues at hand.
Q. What was the author’s impression of the FTC’s approach to regulating social media?
A. The author believed that the FTC misunderstood how social media works, particularly in its definition of the market and its treatment of private messaging apps.
Q. Why is it important for the government to scrutinize Meta’s power?
A. Scrutiny is necessary because Meta’s influence on the social media landscape could have significant implications for users, competitors, and the broader economy.
Q. What was the author’s overall takeaway from the courtroom hearing?
A. The author believed that the FTC’s approach was misguided and that it failed to understand the complexities of social media, particularly in its treatment of private messaging apps.
