Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles”
Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has done it with preternatural skill.
This is the standard for how you’re expected to act as a technology “leader” - which the majority of VC backed unicorn goal founders (like every FAANG founder) have been executing since day zero.
Defensibility is pretty much one of the first topics raised by every investor, and thus ingrained into every founder: What is our moat? (e.g. how do we ensure no one else gets into our space until we're ready to choke out their air supply).
Sure, but in non-digital markets we had a term for most common growth hacking tactics for attaining that niche monopoly.
Dumping. Operating on loss for years, just burning money to capture a market and then jack up prices and make competition unfeasible.
Which is illegal in most cases when it comes to physical goods. of course it depends on the region you're in - it is extremely illegal with sky high fines in my country for example.
Having the attitude to reach that goal is fine, but the goal itself(monopoly over segment of a market) should be impossible to reach. Whenever it happens markets get distorted to the detriment of all customers.
The whole point of capitalism is to put stress onto system for self-improvement - you need to produce better good, make it more efficient and cheaper, and find perfect balance between price and performance - to run economy as efficiently as possible while basically 'crowdsourcing' resource allocation computation over every market participant.
As soon as that stress is gone, you're back to Guilds system where nothing is dictated by market forces, just at whim of current entity in power.
That is also one of his core arguments on his book "Zero to One".
To be fair, he is not the only one to think like that. Every "captain of industry" needs to be paranoid against competition. It is a basic survival instinct. Just look how much Steve Jobs freaked out about Android and Windows. Or how Alfred Sloan bought or merged every possible competitor. Or the history of Nabisco, the steel industry, Microsoft, AT&T, etc
> Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has done it with preternatural skill.
...and the teachings from Bill Gates and Steve Jobs' mentorship.
> This is the standard for how you’re expected to act as a technology “leader” - which the majority of VC backed unicorn goal founders (like every FAANG founder) have been executing since day zero.
Except knowing how to deal with the time when anti-trust regulators are knocking on your door.
The stark difference between why Microsoft isn't being broken up vs Meta Platforms.
You're correct, this has been the prevailing culture in tech. This is the playbook.
But this isn't a good excuse. Players gonna play - we want them to play to win as hard as they can. But when we have safety guardrails and boundaries like antitrust, they're not supposed to just break through them.
Was he 'taught' by Thiel is that a thing that happened?
It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just gave a playbook for implementing this in the tech space.
This article would have been much better if it was at least a bit more direct. At the most crucial juncture, instead of including Zuck's own words, the author wrote the author's interpretation of his words and then an analogy.
> At this point, Zuck's CFO – one of the adults in the room, attempting to keep the boy king from tripping over his own dick – wrote to Zuck warning him that it was illegal to buy Insta in order to "neutralize a potential competitor."
> Zuck replied that he was, indeed, solely contemplating buying Insta in order to neutralize a potential competitor. It's like this guy kept picking up his dictaphone, hitting "record," and barking, "Hey Bob, I am in receipt of your memo of the 25th, regarding the potential killing of Fred. You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to reiterate that this killing is to be a murder, and it must be as premeditated as possible. Yours very truly, Zuck."
I mean this has been Cory's writing style for years. It should be no surprise.
I think he included, or linked to, enough direct quotes and references to allow him to editorialize as well, and get across his disdain (that many other share no doubt).
This is the man who coined the term "enshittification" after all.
The article talks about writing things down as if it's a negative, but surely we should applaud it? I don't want the lesson to be "don't write things down", I want it to be "don't break the law".
> I don't want the lesson to be "don't write things down", I want it to be "don't break the law".
That would be great if the law was functional. US antitrust law is a low-level IQ test, whose only function is to catch the occasional stray careless CEO admitting to the crime, ignoring corporate training 101. The article puts it well:
> It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, […] It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it.
In other words, think happy thoughts when crushing the competition. Like when Bezos was feeling charitable selling baby products at a massive loss until diapers.com was starved to death[1], and then jacking up the prices.
Negative only for Zuckerberg. The implication is that he was so arrogant and incompetent that he made a mistake (writing) that monopolists in other fields knew to avoid. Incriminating talk “should” happen only in person or on the phone if you don’t want to get busted.
> Did Zuck buy Insta to neutralize a competitor? Sure seems like it! For one thing, Zuck cancelled all work on Facebook Camera "since we're acquiring Instagram."
I don't get this bit. That seems to be supporting exactly the opposite of the author's thesis. If the acquisition had existed only for "neutralizing a competitor", they would have continued work on their existing products in this space, no? Canceling their existing product and keeping the acquisition is more in line with them realizing Instagram was a service they couldn't hope to catch up with. It'd also be consistent with them wanting to carve out a larger niche for Instagram, by reducing the overlap between the two on Facebook's side.
That movie was made almost entirely based off of the story as told by people who were at the time suing Mark Zuckerberg. It is the farthest you can get from fair.
> head of a powerful corporation that almost controls our minds.
I find this line of thinking disingenuous. No one is forcing anyone to participate in social media. At the same time, no one is responsible for others participating in social media. So what makes the CEO of Facebook so evil?
My theory is that he's dislikeable as a person, regardless of what his company is making money from.
"...At this point, Zuck's CFO – one of the adults in the room, attempting to keep the boy king from tripping over his own dick – wrote to Zuck warning him that it was illegal to buy Insta in order to "neutralize a potential competitor."
Zuck replied that he was, indeed, solely contemplating buying Insta in order to neutralize a potential competitor. It's like this guy kept picking up his dictaphone, hitting "record," and barking, "Hey Bob, I am in receipt of your memo of the 25th, regarding the potential killing of Fred. You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to reiterate that this killing is to be a murder, and it must be as premeditated as possible. Yours very truly, Zuck...."
"In Zuckerberg's defense, he's not the only tech CEO who confesses his guilt in writing (recall that FTX planned its crimes in a groupchat called WIREFRAUD)."
Any similarity with other "tech CEOs" seems inculpatory more than exculpatory.
The anti-trust regulators have targeted almost all but one of the FAAMG companies and that is Microsoft, who certainly knows how to avoid a break-up of their entire company.
The rest have not dealt with totally removing their cases entirely, so it makes sense for the FTC and the DOJ to target everyone else first before lastly bringing up a massive case against Microsoft.
There's a reason there's no M in FAANG. Unlike those "upstarts", Microsoft is more like the Lockheed Martin or GE of tech. There is so much Microsoft software in use in the gov't (especially the DoD) that it would be precarious to prosecute/regulate them.
This article is trying way too hard to dunk on Zuckerberg for… doing normal CEO things.
The whole premise seems to be that writing down your thoughts, asking questions, or being transparent in internal emails is somehow a huge self-own. But that’s just how people work—especially when you’re running a massive company and making fast, complex decisions. You write things down, explore ideas, get feedback. Acting like that’s a confession is lazy analysis.
The real problem here is that the author treats normal business strategy—like acquiring a rising competitor—as some kind of criminal mastermind move. Whether or not that should be legal is one debate. But pretending it’s shocking that a company would consider eliminating competitive risk? Come on. That’s what businesses do. If you want to critique the system, critique the system—not the fact that someone used it.
Also, the smug “ha ha, he wrote it down!” attitude is incredibly counterproductive. All it does is teach executives to stop documenting anything real. It punishes transparency and rewards corporate vagueness and CYA behavior. If that’s what we want more of, congrats—we’re on track.
The piece doesn’t offer any actual insight into how companies operate or how antitrust should evolve—it just ridicules someone for not being lawyerly enough in private. That’s not analysis, it’s court fan fiction.
Look - he hasn't made any of his acquisitions any better and Whatsapp especially is a clear slam dunk antitrust case
I'm less interested in some of the political hatchet jobs people do against his company (namely Facebook) but his product sucks and it's been unusable for years
I understand this case is about Facebook and not Instagram, but these quotes might offer another perspective.
>they appear to be reaching critical mass as a place you go to share photos
>[Instagram could] copy what we’re doing now … I view this as a big strategic risk for us if we don’t completely own the photos space.
In a way, this is effectively saying that Instagram could itself become a monopoly (or put differently, come to monopolize). Right? Isn't that what Meta fears?
It makes me wonder if, at least in the case of social networks, there's a natural tendency toward monopolization. In other words, is there not LESS utility to the consumer if we have a bunch of small, competitive social networks duking it out?
I'm not here to excuse Meta and certainly this is the case for federation. I guess I'm left wondering, what exactly was Meta supposed to do?
There's a natural tendency towards monopolization in companies in general. But competition is good, as the alternative is stagnation (especially once a company gets powerful enough to sway governments).
Likewise, platforms are evil, and social network platforms in particular probably shouldn't be allowed to exist. Protocols don't have this fragmentation issue that I guess you are aiming at but never stating directly.
Facebook shouldn't have engaged in anticompetitive practices.
AndrewKemendo|10 months ago
Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles”
Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has done it with preternatural skill.
This is the standard for how you’re expected to act as a technology “leader” - which the majority of VC backed unicorn goal founders (like every FAANG founder) have been executing since day zero.
Gud|10 months ago
I look to individuals like Bill Joy, Linus Thorvalds and Theo de Raadt. People who roll up their sleeves and build amazing things.
Parasites like Zuckerberg and Thiel can go to hell for all I care.
balls187|10 months ago
Xelbair|10 months ago
Dumping. Operating on loss for years, just burning money to capture a market and then jack up prices and make competition unfeasible.
Which is illegal in most cases when it comes to physical goods. of course it depends on the region you're in - it is extremely illegal with sky high fines in my country for example.
Having the attitude to reach that goal is fine, but the goal itself(monopoly over segment of a market) should be impossible to reach. Whenever it happens markets get distorted to the detriment of all customers.
The whole point of capitalism is to put stress onto system for self-improvement - you need to produce better good, make it more efficient and cheaper, and find perfect balance between price and performance - to run economy as efficiently as possible while basically 'crowdsourcing' resource allocation computation over every market participant.
As soon as that stress is gone, you're back to Guilds system where nothing is dictated by market forces, just at whim of current entity in power.
diego_moita|10 months ago
To be fair, he is not the only one to think like that. Every "captain of industry" needs to be paranoid against competition. It is a basic survival instinct. Just look how much Steve Jobs freaked out about Android and Windows. Or how Alfred Sloan bought or merged every possible competitor. Or the history of Nabisco, the steel industry, Microsoft, AT&T, etc
rvz|10 months ago
...and the teachings from Bill Gates and Steve Jobs' mentorship.
> This is the standard for how you’re expected to act as a technology “leader” - which the majority of VC backed unicorn goal founders (like every FAANG founder) have been executing since day zero.
Except knowing how to deal with the time when anti-trust regulators are knocking on your door.
The stark difference between why Microsoft isn't being broken up vs Meta Platforms.
badgersnake|10 months ago
So let’s RICO them then I guess.
scyzoryk_xyz|10 months ago
But this isn't a good excuse. Players gonna play - we want them to play to win as hard as they can. But when we have safety guardrails and boundaries like antitrust, they're not supposed to just break through them.
Was he 'taught' by Thiel is that a thing that happened?
xyst|10 months ago
All of this so he and his other billionaire friends can turn society into “network states” (privatized entities/corporate towns).
dimal|10 months ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
arcticfox|10 months ago
> At this point, Zuck's CFO – one of the adults in the room, attempting to keep the boy king from tripping over his own dick – wrote to Zuck warning him that it was illegal to buy Insta in order to "neutralize a potential competitor."
> Zuck replied that he was, indeed, solely contemplating buying Insta in order to neutralize a potential competitor. It's like this guy kept picking up his dictaphone, hitting "record," and barking, "Hey Bob, I am in receipt of your memo of the 25th, regarding the potential killing of Fred. You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to reiterate that this killing is to be a murder, and it must be as premeditated as possible. Yours very truly, Zuck."
sbarre|10 months ago
I think he included, or linked to, enough direct quotes and references to allow him to editorialize as well, and get across his disdain (that many other share no doubt).
This is the man who coined the term "enshittification" after all.
andrewaylett|10 months ago
klabb3|10 months ago
That would be great if the law was functional. US antitrust law is a low-level IQ test, whose only function is to catch the occasional stray careless CEO admitting to the crime, ignoring corporate training 101. The article puts it well:
> It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, […] It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it.
In other words, think happy thoughts when crushing the competition. Like when Bezos was feeling charitable selling baby products at a massive loss until diapers.com was starved to death[1], and then jacking up the prices.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapers.com
wanderingstan|10 months ago
casey2|10 months ago
jsnell|10 months ago
I don't get this bit. That seems to be supporting exactly the opposite of the author's thesis. If the acquisition had existed only for "neutralizing a competitor", they would have continued work on their existing products in this space, no? Canceling their existing product and keeping the acquisition is more in line with them realizing Instagram was a service they couldn't hope to catch up with. It'd also be consistent with them wanting to carve out a larger niche for Instagram, by reducing the overlap between the two on Facebook's side.
bagacrap|10 months ago
neuroelectron|10 months ago
neves|10 months ago
It's really terrible to have somebody like him as the head of a powerful corporation that almost controls our minds.
fallingknife|10 months ago
redleader55|10 months ago
I find this line of thinking disingenuous. No one is forcing anyone to participate in social media. At the same time, no one is responsible for others participating in social media. So what makes the CEO of Facebook so evil?
My theory is that he's dislikeable as a person, regardless of what his company is making money from.
belter|10 months ago
Zuck replied that he was, indeed, solely contemplating buying Insta in order to neutralize a potential competitor. It's like this guy kept picking up his dictaphone, hitting "record," and barking, "Hey Bob, I am in receipt of your memo of the 25th, regarding the potential killing of Fred. You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to reiterate that this killing is to be a murder, and it must be as premeditated as possible. Yours very truly, Zuck...."
1vuio0pswjnm7|10 months ago
Any similarity with other "tech CEOs" seems inculpatory more than exculpatory.
sameermanek|10 months ago
fifticon|10 months ago
3np|10 months ago
wyclif|10 months ago
rvz|10 months ago
The rest have not dealt with totally removing their cases entirely, so it makes sense for the FTC and the DOJ to target everyone else first before lastly bringing up a massive case against Microsoft.
Perhaps that is their strategy in all of this.
diyftw|10 months ago
croes|10 months ago
dana321|10 months ago
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
EchoVivaldi45|10 months ago
The whole premise seems to be that writing down your thoughts, asking questions, or being transparent in internal emails is somehow a huge self-own. But that’s just how people work—especially when you’re running a massive company and making fast, complex decisions. You write things down, explore ideas, get feedback. Acting like that’s a confession is lazy analysis.
The real problem here is that the author treats normal business strategy—like acquiring a rising competitor—as some kind of criminal mastermind move. Whether or not that should be legal is one debate. But pretending it’s shocking that a company would consider eliminating competitive risk? Come on. That’s what businesses do. If you want to critique the system, critique the system—not the fact that someone used it.
Also, the smug “ha ha, he wrote it down!” attitude is incredibly counterproductive. All it does is teach executives to stop documenting anything real. It punishes transparency and rewards corporate vagueness and CYA behavior. If that’s what we want more of, congrats—we’re on track.
The piece doesn’t offer any actual insight into how companies operate or how antitrust should evolve—it just ridicules someone for not being lawyerly enough in private. That’s not analysis, it’s court fan fiction.
alex1138|10 months ago
I'm less interested in some of the political hatchet jobs people do against his company (namely Facebook) but his product sucks and it's been unusable for years
caboteria|10 months ago
> Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?
"Normal CEO things" don't include committing crimes, and they are only a "huge self-own" when they document those crimes.
koakuma-chan|10 months ago
n4r9|10 months ago
bwb|10 months ago
Ethics are essential in every decision, not because you can get in trouble legally, but because you are part of a society of people like you.
mrcwinn|10 months ago
>they appear to be reaching critical mass as a place you go to share photos
>[Instagram could] copy what we’re doing now … I view this as a big strategic risk for us if we don’t completely own the photos space.
In a way, this is effectively saying that Instagram could itself become a monopoly (or put differently, come to monopolize). Right? Isn't that what Meta fears?
It makes me wonder if, at least in the case of social networks, there's a natural tendency toward monopolization. In other words, is there not LESS utility to the consumer if we have a bunch of small, competitive social networks duking it out?
I'm not here to excuse Meta and certainly this is the case for federation. I guess I'm left wondering, what exactly was Meta supposed to do?
BlueTemplar|10 months ago
Likewise, platforms are evil, and social network platforms in particular probably shouldn't be allowed to exist. Protocols don't have this fragmentation issue that I guess you are aiming at but never stating directly.
Facebook shouldn't have engaged in anticompetitive practices.