The Case for Breaking up Facebook, According to One of the Men Who Founded It

Chris Hughes was Mark Zuckerberg’s college roommate. His new op-ed puts them on opposite sides.

Photo by Chesnot/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Chris Hughes, who helped Mark Zuckerberg co-found Facebook out of a Harvard dorm room fifteen years ago, now thinks the company is a “powerful monopoly” that must be split apart.

“The government must hold Mark accountable,” Hughes wrote in a op-ed published Thursday in The New York Times. “Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American. It is time to break up Facebook.”

In his essay, Hughes criticized regulators for not doing more to stop Facebook from growing into a monopoly and Zuckerberg for his attempts to thwart them. The former Facebook co-founder suggested that federal antitrust actions against IBM, AT&T, and Standard Oil provide instructive models for how regulators can curb Facebook’s massive reach.

“Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government,” Hughes wrote. “He controls three core communications platforms—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—that billions of people use every day.”

Hughes said that the Federal Trade Commission’s decision to let Zuckerberg acquire Instagram and WhatsApp was its “biggest mistake” in failing to rein Facebook’s power. He recalled how the company, years ago, had struggled to adapt to users shedding desktops and increasingly accessing the internet with phones. Facebook hadn’t gotten a lock on mobile yet, and Zuckerberg responded by buying companies that had—and the FTC willingly approved it.

In his op-ed, the former Facebook co-founder argued the FTC should take action and retroactively spin-off companies owned by Facebook into separate entities. But Zuckerberg might already be taking steps to head this off: Facebook has moved to more closely integrate WhatsApp and Instagram, making it more difficult for regulators to break units off from the multibillion-dollar company.

Hughes also noted other efforts by the company to stymie competition.

“When it hasn’t acquired its way to dominance, Facebook has used its monopoly position to shut out competing companies or has copied their technology,” he said, referencing Facebook’s decision to block the defunct Twitter-owned video app Vine from accessing Facebook users’ friends, and the company’s appropriation of Snapchat’s core features of disappearing photos and video.

“Investors realize that if a company gets traction, Facebook will copy its innovations, shut it down or acquire it for a relatively modest sum. So despite an extended economic expansion, increasing interest in high-tech start-ups, an explosion of venture capital and growing public distaste for Facebook, no major social networking company has been founded since the fall of 2011,” Hughes wrote.

A number of other former high-profile Facebook employees and executives have criticized the company over the past several years, including former President Sean Parker and former senior executive Chamath Palihapitiya. Leaders of the companies Facebook has acquired, including WhatsApp’s Brian Acton, have also lambasted the company.

On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, Democrat Elizabeth Warren has also called for regulation and the breaking up of large tech companies including Facebook.

In a March Washington Post op-ed, Zuckerberg welcomed some form of regulation of his company. Hughes argued in his own op-ed that the move represented a preemptive attempt to direct the conversation to new rules and regulations, and away from any antitrust action that might break up Facebook.

“If we do not take action, Facebook’s monopoly will become even more entrenched,” Hughes warns. “With much of the world’s personal communications in hand, it can mine that data for patterns and trends, giving it an advantage over competitors for decades to come.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate