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.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.”