this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
717 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

69098 readers
4321 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, and/or that they raised prices or reduced quality because they knew they didn't have to fear competitors.

It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it. What am I, a mind-reader? But imagine for a second that the corporation in the dock is a global multinational. Now, imagine that the majority of the voting shares in that company are held by one man, who has served as the company's CEO since the day he founded it, personally calling every important shot in the company's history.

Now imagine that this founder/CEO, this accused monopolist, was an incorrigible blabbermouth, who communicated with his underlings almost exclusively in writing, and thus did he commit to immortal digital storage a stream – a torrent – of memos in which he explicitly confessed his guilt.

Ladies and gentlepersons, I give you Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (nee Facebook), an accused monopolist who cannot keep his big dumb fucking mouth shut.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 69 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What's even funnier is that he'll pay a relatively insignificant fine, and be able to continue and profit from the monopoly.

Corporate dictatorships masquerading as "democracy" is FUN!

Blessed be the profit margins. May the lord open.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It’s very hard to actually get a company broken up and I can’t remember ever seeing it happen. But when your antitrust case is judged against you, they don’t just charge you a fine and say “on your way now.”

[–] klemptor@startrek.website 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah somehow Microsoft dodged it in 2001 which is pretty mind-boggling because they were supreme at that point

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah office should have been split and MSN too. But we have had oligarchs calling the shot for eons.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago

The ATT orientation video about that is hilarious. It shows how Ma Bell was broken up, and then it just circles back around to it coming back together. On a map, with arrows lol

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah, Ma Bell breaking up into the Baby Bells is the only real example I can think of, and even they came back together later (though, by then, there was enough diversity in the market that they couldn't reclaim the level of market dominance they once had)