There is a limit to that, and a significant portion of the lost ad revenue could be regained. They hold the audience, so advertisers will follow to them to other jurisdictions.
This isn't only about FB and spammers, it's also about where FB pays taxes and who can access them.
I don't think it would result in a competitor.
Likely not, but if the EU blocks FB there will be a competitor soon and it will be global and offer slightly better privacy.
Russia was a different case because that userbase was hungry for a local alternative, and potentially viable competitors already existed.
I doubt that. They probably just want more control. While they have working alternatives for FB and google search, they don't have anything really comparing to AWS or the google cloud.
Europe governments can impact profits, but I don't believe they can do so in a sustainable way that would cause any permanent or serious damage to Facebooks stranglehold, or data collection.
It's unlikely they'd do that but they could threaten it, for EU people.
I admit I am deep into speculation at this point, and have done little to no research on the topic. I still think I'm right though :p
Me too, no idea what politicians will actually do when confronted with the evil "Internet". But it's usually something where everyone loses.
but if the EU blocks FB
I don't think that is something Zuck would fear. I don't think that could be done. Logistics of implementing a block aside, what elected official is going to try and tell their constituents that Facebook is no longer allowed? That'd be political suicide.
It's unlikely they'd ..
I don't think any of these scenarios are going to play out. In the end there will be compromises all around, Zuck will still be king, and still hold and collect data on everyone. Appropriate lambs will be offered up, and the right palms greased, then business continues as usual.
But there's some posturing to do first. I think Europe has to bend the knee before the Zuck will negotiate, he can afford to play games for at this point.
But it's usually something where everyone loses.
Agreed, history has show that is usually the epilogue, when politicians get involved.
I don't think that could be done. Logistics of implementing a block aside, what elected official is going to try and tell their constituents that Facebook is no longer allowed?
They'd compromise in a way like: EU citizens can only be on eu.facebook.com, but eu.facebookcom is owned by facebook.com but follows the EU rules. Eu probably would give them a tax cut for having their EU subcompany there and the secret services would pay a charge to access their protected data.
Europe has to bend the knee before the Zuck will negotiate, he can afford to play games
You're technically correct, but Zuckerface needs to appeal to future investors. And being undiplomatic is not going to do that.
There is a limit to that, and a significant portion of the lost ad revenue could be regained. They hold the audience, so advertisers will follow to them to other jurisdictions.
I don't think it would result in a competitor. As long as Zuck doesn't get too out of line, the user base is not going to leave his monopoly. The fact that it is a monopoly is what makes it so effective. Users know that so will be reluctant to leave without strong cause.
I wish they would, that would solve some of the problems without any government intervention.
Russia was a different case because that userbase was hungry for a local alternative, and potentially viable competitors already existed.
Europe governments can impact profits, but I don't believe they can do so in a sustainable way that would cause any permanent or serious damage to Facebooks stranglehold, or data collection.
I admit I am deep into speculation at this point, and have done little to no research on the topic.
I still think I'm right though :p