Mark Zuckerberg threatens to shut down Facebook (and Instagram) in the countries of the European Union if the latter does not change the rules on the transatlantic transfer of data.
On 11 September, the Irish Privacy Authority has established in fact that Meta's data transfer mechanism between Europe and the United States cannot be used: an epochal action, the first of its kind.
Think about what could happen if this were to happen: millions of people who work with these social networks would be left without work, thousands and thousands of companies that have invested significant amounts in these platforms would be forced to close, thousands of people would find themselves having to direct their business on other channels (and to date it does not exist nothing like that that can replace those platforms).
It's just a threat, we might think
And so it is, for now. Moreover, it is not the first of its kind, Zuckerberg has feared this draconian solution even two years ago.
This is simply not the point. What matters is that a private citizen can, with his declaration, suddenly pose himself as a threat to 28 countries, or if you prefer an entire continent. It is not a trivial matter.
The second thought we might have is “the state could create another platform to replace Meta's ones”. Well, it's not that simple: it would take a long time. And then which state would create it? China has been able to make a similar move for the huge population it holds and for social cohesion based on a state that is first and foremost a "civilization" of almost 1 billion people.
Perhaps this news should make us open a reasoning about the world we have created and where we want to go. It is not just about Facebook or Instagram, it is not a question of a single company, but of the world-system that we have built in these years, in these decades. Of the same relationship that large companies, especially the Big of technology, they are having vis-à-vis the "traditional" states. A relationship that, between coin minting and build mini city-states, could itself become the real, great threat of this century.
We need to reflect
Is it right that a single person, holder of economic, technological, occupational, transnational power (and therefore not attributable to any particular state) can decide the fate of millions of people around the world? Is it right to entrust to the private individual one or more powers that previously were the exclusive prerogative of the state?
Perhaps we should rethink the economic and social system in which we live, or resign ourselves to the flattening of ultra-liberal thinking that would like the total annihilation of the public in favor of the private. How long will these powerful people be "good" and magnanimous towards us?
The answer is obvious: as long as it suits them. "Facebook is free," the company's claim read, "and it always will be".
