Dina Srinivasan: Facebook is a monopoly, but breaking it up isn’t the answer
Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Anchor
Whether big tech platforms need to be broken up in order to rein them in is now a matter of public debate — and will be a big topic during the U.S. presidential election next year.
Dina Srinivasan is an academic, who went from being an ad tech entrepreneur to writing about the anti-trust case against Facebook, most recently for the Berkeley Business Law Journal. She doesn’t think breaking up big tech is the answer. Instead, she advocates for the anti-trust approach.
“The market right now is spewing out some really warped outcomes and some tweaks at a 10,000 feet level need to be made to make these markets more efficient,” said Srinivasan on this week’s episode of the Digiday Podcast. “The likelihood that anti-trust allegation is imminent is very high at this point. But speaking to Elizabeth Warren’s recommendation, break up may be more difficult. We have to focus on what problems we are trying to remedy in the market. The break up of oil made Rockefeller much wealthier. So break up is not always the answer.”
Srinivasan discussed why antitrust is the way to deal with Facebook, how the dominance of Facebook and Google is different from the fleeting power of Myspace and Yahoo and what a likely federal regulatory remedy would look like. Edited highlights below.
Facebook is a monopoly.
“Anti-trust can be a very theoretical space to play in. It concerns itself with two patterns. One is monopolies, when a company is so powerful in the market that consumers don’t really have a choice or choice is significantly precluded in the market. The second pattern is when competitors in the market agree to do something in unison against consumers, which is reflected in price-fixing conspiracies and such. Monopoly [exists] when any product is used by consumers and other products can’t be used interchangeably. If I leave AT&T today, I can go to Verizon. But if people leave Facebook, we don’t see them using Twitter interchangeably with Facebook. Facebook looks very much like a monopoly.”
Facebook won in the winner-takes-all philosophy that governs the Silicon Valley.
“Facebook largely pushed Myspace out of the market at a time when they were competing really hard on this concept of privacy. It wasn’t until Myspace exited the market that Facebook unrolled a lot of its privacy representations. Myspace was very similar to Facebook in the sense that it was operating a close network. The philosophy in Silicon Valley was to win a race and it was a winner takes all market that made sure others couldn’t compete.”
Facebook may not cost money but nothing comes free.
“From a monopoly perspective, it doesn’t matter what advertisers think. The product is social networking, it’s a communications product. Then the question is, does Facebook look monopolist? The entire refrain was that it’s free so there’s no problem, therefore consumers are happy, so there is no anti-trust concern. In economics, when you measure price movement and price differences, it’s always price per constant quality. Quality is the inverse measurement to look at privacy and data differences. That’s when you see the story of monopolist comes to light.”
What can stop Facebook?
“The message interoperability that allows users of other social networks to post messages and push it Facebook accounts is the number one way [to remove this monopoly.] It’s equivalent to allowing AT&T customers to call customers with a Verizon phone number. The second thing would be to allow users to opt out of Facebook tracking them on sites off of Facebook. That would have a big impact. Facebook has mirrored its policies across other swathes of the market — Facebook code is embedded into 95 percent of the news sites online — this looks like a horizontal restraint. It precludes competition across entire swaths of the market and gives Facebook a leg up on other sellers of digital advertising, which is harmful.”
How BuzzFeed’s Creator Score is grading the impact of its creator network
BuzzFeed's Creator Network is a primary focus in 2023 for the publisher, and its campaign grading tool is being used to prove out its ability to create successful ads.
In graphic detail: Google’s Ads Safety Report shows suspect ad activities are on the rise
Google's ad transparency efforts detail how bad actors necessitate further investment.
Media Briefing: Publishers share their biggest challenges and opportunities at the Digiday Publishing Summit
While Q1 ad revenue, sales cycles and payment windows appeared to be equally bad across the media industry, bright spots arose around consumer revenue streams, new tech experimentation and traffic patterns.
SponsoredHow critical data pillars will increase brands’ confidence in CTV
This article is part of Digiday’s coverage of its Digiday Publishing Summit. More from the series → Mario Diez, CEO, Peer39 With every quarter, the balance of TV viewership slips away from the traditional linear model and more towards connected TV. Less than half of the adults in the U.S. subscribe to cable or satellite, […]
How Dotdash Meredith worked through the challenge of integrating two major publishers’ tech stacks
At the Digiday Publishing Summit, Dotdash Meredith product chief Adam McClean shared why he had initially expected the integration to be done by summer 2022 and why the work is still ongoing.
Digiday+ Research: Publishers come out on the side of hybrid work as the pandemic dust settles
Being in the office full time might be a thing of the past for publishers, who voiced a clear preference for a hybrid-style workforce.