Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
Facebook changed its name to Meta and spent billions on the Metaverse. This was a failure. If government had done this, it would be lambasted and held up as proof that government is incompetent and can’t do things. Yet, when the private sector does this, we let it go. We shouldn’t have this double standard. In both cases, if some money isn’t wasted on failed ideas, then we aren’t trying enough new ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQGDnM2fSwI
“Eisenstat, Facebook’s former head of election integrity, alleged the social media platform allowed political operatives to mislead the public with sophisticated ad-targeting tools in a 2019 op-ed. Meta has argued that these ad policies were to prevent censorship of political speech.
…
It was hard to find a new job. Eisenstat said she would routinely interview with senior managers who would later ghost her. One institution courted her for months for a leadership role but then told her they wouldn’t hire her. That day, the organization announced a major donation from the philanthropic organization of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan.
…
many whistleblowers say coming forward has unexpectedly derailed their lives. They say they became isolated among their colleagues, suffered severe professional damage, or were pushed out of the industry altogether. For a generation that entered Silicon Valley with a sense of idealism, viewing tech giants as mission-driven organizations seeking to improve the world, the cold reception to what they consider truth-telling has come as a shock.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tech-whistleblowers-face-million-dollar-150822546.html
“the FTC must prove Meta continues to wield monopoly power “whether or not Meta enjoyed [such] power in the past.” Citing Heraclitus’ philosophy of universal flux, Boasberg says, “while it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down.”
…
Meta’s victory over the FTC shows that markets evolve faster than antitrust litigation moves. In this case, antitrust enforcers assumed that Meta was immune to competition and that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp would foreclose the social networking market to newcomers. In reality, social networking and social media have become so intertwined that, if Meta hadn’t acquired Instagram and pivoted to focus on short-form video content, it could have gotten its lunch eaten by TikTok and YouTube.”
https://reason.com/2025/11/19/metas-victory-over-the-federal-trade-commission-shows-the-market-moves-faster-than-antitrust-enforcement/
“The commission fined Apple on Tuesday for preventing developers from directly informing users of deals offered outside the App Store, thereby depriving consumers of the benefits of “alternative and cheaper offers.” The commission has ordered the company to remove these restrictions on pain of additional fines. Apple has called the penalty “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple in a series of decisions that are bad for the privacy and security of our users, bad for products, and force us to give away our technology for free,”
On the same day, Meta was fined for offering Facebook and Instagram users a choice between free versions of the apps with personalized advertising and paid ones without advertising—something the commission calls a “pay or consent model.” In a statement, a spokesman for Meta accused the commission of “forcing us to change our business model” said this “effectively imposes a multibillion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service.””
https://reason.com/2025/04/28/european-commission-fines-apple-and-meta-800-million/
“Top Chinese research institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army have used Meta’s publicly available Llama model to develop an AI tool for potential military applications, according to three academic papers and analysts.”
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/exclusive-chinese-researchers-develop-ai-023814416.html
https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/7/28/23809028/ai-artificial-intelligence-open-closed-meta-mark-zuckerberg-sam-altman-open-ai
“The government legislation that both companies are protesting is called the Online News Act, or C-18. The intention is to give the long-suffering journalism industry a little cash boost, likely at the expense of two companies that are partially responsible for its woes. It accomplishes this by compelling them to pay Canadian news outlets if they host links to their content. (Fenlon’s employer, which is a public broadcaster, officially supports the Online News Act.) That’s why Meta and Google are threatening to remove news links for all Canadian users, permanently, if the law applies to them when it takes effect, likely by the end of this year.”
…
“The new Canadian law is modeled on a controversial Australian law, the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which went into effect in 2021. Google and Meta’s responses to that law were similar threats to pull links, but both companies ended up making payments to some news organizations. The Australian government estimates that news outlets got AU$200 million, although it doesn’t know that for sure — nor does it know how that money was distributed — because the companies were allowed to keep those figures private. Even so, other countries, like Canada, likely assumed they’d get similar results with similar laws and were less apt to take Google and Meta’s threats seriously.
If you’re Google and Meta, this may not seem fair. Links are meant to drive people to websites, right? News sites are getting traffic through those links they otherwise may not have gotten, and the platform loses eyeballs when people click away from it. Meta contends that it doesn’t even post the links in the first place; its users, including the outlets themselves, do that. In the eyes of Google and Meta, they’re doing news sites a favor. And, Meta has said, news content is a very small draw for its users. If the companies don’t really need news links to attract users, why should they be forced to pay for them and be subject to government regulation, something they want to avoid at all costs?”
…
“In the eyes of the law’s supporters, however, Google and Meta’s business models have taken a lot away from journalism, and this “link tax” is the least they can do to pay some of that back. And, yes, the internet has decimated the journalism industry. One way is digital ad revenues: They’re a fraction of what news outlets commanded for their print and broadcast products, and that already smaller sum is reduced even further because online advertising companies — an industry dominated by Meta and Google — take a cut of it for themselves. One oft-cited statistic has Google and Meta getting 80 percent of online advertising revenue in the country. While Google and Meta have programs that pay news companies, including in Canada, they’re not legally required to do it, they can pick and choose who and what to support (and, by extension, who and what not to support), and they can change the terms whenever they want. Meta, for example, ended an emerging journalists fellowship program in Canada in response to C-18’s passage. The Online News Act is meant to ensure that even the smallest publications get something and that the DNIs have to pay at all. The Canadian government estimates the law will generate about CA$330 million a year for its news outlets.
But that’s all if there are links to Canadian news outlets on those platforms in the first place, which brings us to the current game of chicken between the Canadian government and Big Tech — and the yawning gaps on the news feeds of people like Fenlon and Krichel.”