Latest news with #BrianActon
The Verge
25-05-2025
- Business
- The Verge
Meta's antitrust defense wraps with one big claim: WhatsApp and Instagram couldn't be better
For five weeks, the Federal Trade Commission asked a federal judge to imagine a world where Instagram and WhatsApp flourished outside Meta's control instead of being acquired by the tech giant. In the sixth and final week of trial, Meta asked Judge James Boasberg to consider that actually, these apps might be as good as they can get. Meta rested its case Wednesday after a brief four days in court (many of its witnesses were also called by the FTC, so it already had the chance to question them in prior weeks). In those final days, Meta called on WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton and an early Instagram infrastructure executive to explain how Meta helped those apps grow in ways they'd be unlikely to otherwise — countering testimony from Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom, who claimed Meta withheld resources to help the app grow and become safer, and believed Instagram would have still been a hit on its own. Meta argues that far from becoming competitors that checked Meta's power, Instagram and WhatsApp might have withered, remaining far less useful or accessible to consumers than they are today. Several Meta witnesses also called out the elephant in the room: TikTok. The FTC says that social media apps primarily focused on entertainment like TikTok and YouTube are not part of the personal social networking services market it claims Meta's monopolized — where users connect to their friends and family. Meta says this definition misses the point of how competition works in the social media space. Rather than focus on how consumers use aspects of the apps, it argues, the judge should focus on which industry players compete with one another. It says what actually constrains its power is the constant fight for users' time and attention, creators' content, and ad dollars. 'Antitrust law does not require consideration of such an 'infinite range' of possible substitutes' Economic experts helped Meta argue that TikTok's rapid growth poses real competition that must be accounted for. Though TikTok has evolved into a much more formidable competitor for Meta's products in the years since the FTC first filed the case in 2020, Boasberg warned in a November order that Meta's argument about competing for time and attention 'is true but beside the point.' Accepting Meta's view would require accepting that 'Meta competes not just with YouTube, TikTok, and X, but also with watching a movie at a friend's house, reading a book at the library, and playing online poker,' he wrote. 'Antitrust law does not require consideration of such an 'infinite range' of possible substitutes.' He also cautioned, however, that the government's claims 'at times strain this country's creaking antitrust precedents to their limits.' During the trial, Boasberg seemed to take seriously a point Meta's chief marketing officer Alex Schultz testified to: that Facebook and Instagram have already added just about as many US users as they could possibly get. The FTC had noted that Meta's user growth rate may look slower because it's already added most of the nation's 250 million potential eligible users, but even in the face of its claimed competition from TikTok and YouTube, that doesn't mean it's not still growing overall. Schultz said that's exactly why competing for attention with those apps has become so important, since if almost everyone has them downloaded, which ones get regularly opened is what matters. Boasberg later asked the FTC's lead economic expert, Scott Hemphill, to respond to this, adding that it would be 'pretty hard' for Instagram to be much bigger in the US than it already is. Hemphill argued that growing Instagram to its massive scale today doesn't mean Meta made social media better for users than it otherwise would be. Without Meta's stewardship, he said, the whole personal social networking market — not just Instagram — might have been a better one for consumers on metrics like consumer welfare and app quality. 'Meta is a proud American success story' Meta has argued the FTC is living in the past and exaggerating the continued importance of friends and family sharing on its apps. Still, the company has recognized some users still want to use its products to connect with people they know in real life, prompting them to roll out 'OG Facebook,' which lets users scroll through a feed of exclusively their mutual connections, avoiding what's become the main Facebook experience in 2025 of mostly algorithmically recommended posts. Head of Facebook Tom Alison testified that on the main feed, a user might have to scroll all day to see all the posts from their friends, as the 'core experience' has moved away from this kind of content. Judge Boasberg will decide whether the experience of connecting with friends on social media is still important enough to be a distinct market Meta dominates. He dismissed Meta's attempt to get an early ruling in its favor, however, saying he's not prepared to issue a verdict yet. Should he side with the FTC, the government would likely ask him to consider tearing away the very apps Meta bought to expand its empire. Meta says that would stifle the exact kind of innovation that the FTC claims it's promoting. 'After six weeks trying to make their case to undo acquisitions made over a decade ago and show that no deal is ever truly final, the only thing the FTC showed was the dynamic, hyper-competitive nature of the past, present and future of the technology industry,' Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro says in a statement. 'Meta is a proud American success story, and we look forward to continuing to innovate and serve the people and businesses who love our services.'
The Verge
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Verge
Did WhatsApp really need Meta?
In its antitrust case against Meta, the US Federal Trade Commission is asking a judge to consider an alternate reality. In that world, the company never bought Instagram and WhatsApp. The two apps remained competitive with Facebook, developing features that competed for users' attention. And that competition created a thriving ecosystem of social media apps where people can connect with their friends and family. Meta has spent the past several days — during which it's begun lodging its case-in-chief in a Washington, DC, courthouse — building a counternarrative. In its telling of this alternate present, Instagram and WhatsApp are shadows of what they are in our world. They lacked the resources, expertise, and vision to become robust and valuable online platforms, let alone formidable competitors. And consumers are the ones who ultimately suffered. One of Meta's key witnesses for this defense is WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton, who was called on Tuesday to help make its case that WhatsApp users, just like Instagram ones, benefited from Meta's acquisition. Acton was the second app founder to testify in the case, after Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom delivered mostly blistering testimony against the company a few weeks ago. Acton's time on the stand came off less acrimonious, though both Meta and the FTC scored some key points. Acton was a striking witness for Meta to call given his high-profile departure from the company in 2017. The cofounder left $800 million in unvested restricted stock units on the table after butting heads with top Meta executives over putting ads in WhatsApp (when an FTC attorney pointed out the stock would have been worth $4 billion today, he joked, 'please don't say that,' but reassured himself it would only be $2 billion after taxes). The next year, he publicly advocated for people to delete Facebook in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Acton reaffirmed that he had absolutely no interest in building a feed into WhatsApp But Acton backed up some important claims Meta has been making throughout the trial. Meta has repeatedly argued that WhatsApp was unlikely to compete with Facebook in the social networking space, so it wasn't just trying to take out a potential rival. Acton reaffirmed that he and cofounder Jan Koum had absolutely no interest in building social features like a feed into WhatsApp, or changing the company into an ad-supported business — even if their pre-acquisition investors wished they would. While the FTC has argued that WhatsApp could have succeeded on its own or with a different parent company, Acton said he and Koum rebuffed other offers, and felt that Meta's infrastructure helped it skip over substantial work it would have had to do otherwise. On cross-examination, however, the FTC got some important admissions from Acton. Using Meta's infrastructure might have helped it skip some steps, but Acton testified that WhatsApp didn't actually migrate to Meta's data centers to ward off outages — and WhatsApp had been highly capable of finding technical support for the app already. Instead, he said, he and Koum wanted to make sure Meta would continue operating the app even after they left. Far from being a bare-bones messaging app without Meta's help, Acton testified that WhatsApp had already added several features before the acquisition like group messaging, video and audio messaging, and location sharing — with plans to add even more. WhatsApp was already growing incredibly fast prior to the acquisition, doubling in size every 12 to 18 months — that growth rate stayed pretty consistent even after Meta bought it. Acton was confident that even without Meta, WhatsApp would have grown from the more than 400 million monthly active users prior to the deal to one billion in about 18 months. This echoed testimony from Systrom that Instagram would likely still be successful without the sale. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified earlier in trial that he was surprised at how little interest WhatsApp's founders had in building something larger than a 'lifestyle company.' But while Acton reaffirmed his disdain for an ad-supported model that could pump up revenue, he conceded that he agreed to sell to Meta without securing a firm commitment against deploying ads, and he understood Meta's offer price was likely based partly on plans to do so. That seemed to support the idea that the founders could have been open to monetizing their product more than they let on — potentially growing it into a rival for Meta. WhatsApp might have been an even better product — one that flourished in more markets with stronger privacy protections — without Meta's stewardship, the FTC suggested. In a November 2014 email, it pointed out, a WhatsApp employee told Acton and Koum that executives at its new owner had 'some reservation' about promoting the app in countries where Facebook Messenger was already a leader. Meta successfully pressured WhatsApp to change its privacy policy and terms of service in 2016 so that Facebook could capitalize on user data for its ads product (unless WhatsApp users opted out). And it pushed for a business version of the app, something Acton said he was 'adamantly against,' fearing it would dilute WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption. After Acton left, the product launched.
Mint
21-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
WhatsApp co-founder says, ‘Never intended to be Facebook,' defends Meta in antitrust trial
Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, told a US federal court on Tuesday that the messaging platform never intended to build social networking features like Facebook. This claim bolsters Meta's defence in the ongoing antitrust trial brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 'We had no ambition to build Facebook-like functionality like a feed or any Facebook-like features,' Acton stated during his testimony in Washington. He further suggested that WhatsApp could have remained viable as a subscription-based service rather than resorting to advertising, had it not been acquired by Facebook (now Meta). The testimony comes during the sixth week of a landmark antitrust trial in which the FTC accuses Meta Platforms Inc. of monopolising the social networking space through its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. The agency is seeking to break up Meta, alleging the company stifled competition by absorbing potential rivals. A central argument in the FTC's case is that Meta saw WhatsApp as a looming threat in the social networking arena, despite the app being a private messaging service at the time of its $19 billion acquisition in 2014. Citing internal messages, the agency has portrayed Meta executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, as concerned that WhatsApp could evolve into a broader social platform. In one 2013 email to Facebook's board, Zuckerberg warned of the risk posed by messaging apps transforming into full-fledged social networks. 'The biggest competitive vector for us is for some company to build out a messaging app for communicating with small groups of people, and then transforming that into a broader social network,' he wrote. However, Meta's legal team is pushing back against this narrative. During Tuesday's session, they presented a handwritten note from Acton himself, emblazoned with the message: 'No Ads! No Games! No Gimmicks!' as evidence of WhatsApp's core philosophy before the acquisition. Acton, who was called as a witness by Meta, affirmed that there were no plans to incorporate social media features or an advertising model into the app's roadmap. Under questioning from FTC lawyers, Acton admitted he was unaware of the specific factors behind Meta's offer but assumed that advertising potential factored into the valuation. He also acknowledged that WhatsApp would have likely continued expanding its feature set independently, though not in a way that mimicked Facebook's platform. Acton also expressed concern over Meta's decision to launch a business version of WhatsApp, criticising it for potentially compromising the app's end-to-end encryption. This commercial arm of WhatsApp was developed after Acton's departure from the company in 2018, a move he said he opposed while still at Meta. Despite the later divergence in values, Acton acknowledged that Meta's offer represented a 'fair valuation' given WhatsApp's user base at the time. He highlighted the app's success with its subscription model in several countries, suggesting there was scope to increase revenues through that route. Since his exit, Acton has publicly distanced himself from his former employer, most notably tweeting '#DeleteFacebook' in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018. Although he profited significantly from the sale — his net worth is estimated at $4.5 billion, according to Bloomberg — he has expressed regret over the deal, particularly as Meta moved towards monetising WhatsApp through ads. The case,Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc., is being heard in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. (With inputs from Bloomberg)
Bloomberg
20-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
WhatsApp Had No Plans to Compete With Facebook, Co-Founder Says
WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton said that his messaging company had no plans to build social networking features to compete with Facebook before he sold the company to Mark Zuckerberg, a claim that bolsters Meta's defense as it faces federal antitrust allegations. 'We had no ambition to build Facebook-like functionality like a feed or any Facebook-like features,' Acton said Tuesday during testimony at a federal courthouse in Washington. He also said that WhatsApp could have stuck with a subscription business instead of selling targeted ads if the service had remained independent.
Boston Globe
21-04-2025
- Boston Globe
How secure is Signal, anyway?
Advertisement Here's what to know. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up What is Signal used for? Signal is an encrypted messaging application that is used to communicate securely. It encrypts messages from end-to-end, meaning that what a user says is encrypted on their device and isn't decrypted until it reaches the recipient. This method protects the message from being intercepted and read by anyone, including internet service providers, hackers or Signal itself, while it is in transit. Users can also set Signal messages to disappear after a certain length of time. Users who want their messages to disappear can turn on the feature in the settings for each of their individual chats. Who owns Signal? Signal is owned by an independent nonprofit in the United States called the Signal Foundation. It is funded by donations from its users and by grants. Advertisement The foundation was started in 2018 with a $50 million donation from Brian Acton, a co-founder of WhatsApp, another messaging platform, which Facebook purchased in 2014. Acton left WhatsApp to start the Signal Foundation after disputes with Facebook, which is now known as Meta, about plans to make money from his messaging service. Acton joined Moxie Marlinspike, a cryptographer who designed Signal's security system, to create the Signal Foundation. The foundation is structured to prevent Signal from ever having an incentive to sell user data. 'There are so many great reasons to be on Signal,' Marlinspike, who stepped down from the foundation's board in 2022, wrote in a post on the social platform X last month. 'Now including the opportunity for the vice president of the United States of America to randomly add you to a group chat for coordination of sensitive military operations. Don't sleep on this opportunity.' Is Signal secure? Yes. Signal is widely regarded as the most secure messaging app on the market, because of its encryption technology and other measures designed to secure users' data. Its underlying encryption technology is open source, which means the code is made public and allows technologists outside the nonprofit to examine it and identify flaws. The technology is also licensed and used by other services, such as WhatsApp. That encryption technology has been key when Signal has been a target of foreign hackers. Russia has attempted to surveil when Ukrainians are using Signal, and in February, Google researchers said that Russian hackers had tried to hijack users' Signal accounts. While the second attack was effective, it worked by tricking users into adding rogue devices to their Signal accounts, not by breaking Signal's encryption. Advertisement 'Phishing attacks against people using popular applications and websites are a fact of life on the Internet,' said Jun Harada, a Signal spokesperson. 'Once we learned that Signal users were being targeted, and how they were being targeted, we introduced additional safeguards and in-app warnings to help protect people from falling victim to phishing attacks.' In the event of a security breach, Signal is designed to retain as little user data as possible, so that minimal information is exposed. Unlike other messaging services, the company doesn't store users' contacts or other identifying data that could indicate how a person used the service. That doesn't mean Signal is the ideal service for communicating war plans. If a user's device is compromised, their Signal messages could be read -- and using a government-approved communication system could prevent officials from inadvertently including a journalist in a war planning discussion. Is Signal safe for texting? Yes, generally, although users should be careful to vet new contacts, just as they might on any other social platform. And when adding people to their group chats, they may want to take an extra moment to make sure they've included the right contacts.
