If Meta Is A ‘Monopoly,' Why Is Mark Zuckerberg Offering ‘Big Bucks'?

Forbes

3 days ago

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary ... More Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony from the heads of the largest tech firms on the dangers of child sexual exploitation on social media. (Photo by)
Business monopolies don't need to compete. Why should they compete when they're already monopolies? Why indeed.
It's a question worth asking in consideration of the FTC's lawsuit against Meta, one that accuses it of having acquired monopoly dominance of the social media market through its past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
The seemingly obvious reply to the FTC is what an odd lawsuit considering the myriad internet locales to access, including social media giants like YouTube and TikTok that Meta does not own. Which is the initial point.
No doubt Facebook itself is the most visited of the various social media sites, but its very ubiquity ensured more competition for eyeballs. This included the arrival of YouTube and TikTok, along with former unknowns like Instagram and WhatsApp. Far from a monopolistic move, Facebook's acquisition of both was an admission that tomorrow in business is another century. For Facebook to have sat idle, enjoying the ubiquity of – yes – Facebook, it would have set itself up for obsolescence.
Notable about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his operation of what is now Meta, the name change itself is evidence that there are no monopolies in business sectors defined by dynamism, but there are formerly great businesses that are formerly great because they didn't evolve. In other words, Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp weren't monopolistic simply because so-called 'monopolies' don't sell for $1 billion and $19 billion in the world's most competitive, dynamic sector. Which means Facebook and Zuckerberg's purchases were attempts to keep Facebook great in a marketplace that routinely and ruthlessly puts former greats out to pasture.
Crucial about Zuckerberg's keen eye for what's ahead is that markets, stock markets in particular, are a bit impatient. Wise as Zuckerberg's acquisitions have at times been, tomorrow in business is once again another century.
Which presumably explains a recent Wall Street Journal article about Zuckerberg, and how he's said to be 'spending his days firing off emails and WhatsApp messages to the sharpest minds in artificial intelligence.' Which is the point once again: business success of the kind that Facebook and Meta have had isn't a path to monopoly, it's the path to the opposite of it. Translated, commercial achievements are the instigators of exponentially more investment in competition meant to create a future that will look nothing like the present. Having discovered a huge market need for online community, Mark Zuckerberg set the stage for the arrival of many would-be Zuckerbergs eager to improve on his own achievements.
In other words, it's not enough to be right once, twice, or many times. To remain relevant in business sectors defined by dynamism, you must be right over and over again. Which explains the headline of this opinion piece, along with the Journal report indicating that Zuckerberg is spending 'Big Bucks' to try and lure world-class talent to 'a new Superintelligence lab he is putting together.' Precisely because AI is poised to profoundly change how we work, and what we do at work, it will surely change how we interact with technology, including social media.
Which is why the FTC should drop its lawsuit in hasty fashion. To suggest that the lawsuit is a look into the past insults understatement, and in the process calls into question the worth of the FTC. Evidence supporting this claim can be found in understanding better how Mark Zuckerberg is spending his days. Stated simply, monopolists aren't offering 'big bucks.' They don't need to.