Separating IG from FB does not put anyone out of work. Nothing gets shut down. FB are extremely profitable, and that almost certainly continues
In the last paragraph, I was trying illustrate a point. With monopolies of the past, the primary concern was that the services continue to operate somehow. EG, when Bell was broken up, the danger was that phone/telegram services would be harmed. Before that, the danger was that steel production would be disrupted and downstream industries harmed.
Facebook is a monopoly in a marketplace of extreme abundance. We have lots of social media, messaging, photo sharing, etc. There is zero danger of shortages or meaningful "consumer harm," regardless of what happens to FB.
Even if antitrust does harm FB, the only stakeholders at risk are FB employees and investors. There is no systemic risk, downstream risk, consumer risk. All the risk is contained within FB.
This doesn't mean FB should be killed. It does mean that the scale tips strongly towards antitrust. On one side, we have a lot of risk. On the other, very little.
People call for putting way more than 50,000+ people out of work all of the time (eliminating the oil and gas industry as an example). If the belief is those people are engaged in harmful activity, why wouldn't you want them to stop ASAP?
