It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More After three hours at Google’s I/O 2025 event last week in Silicon Valley, it became increasingly clear: Google is rallying its formidable AI efforts – prominently branded under the Gemini name but encompassing a diverse range of underlying model architectures and research – with laser focus. It is releasing a slew of innovations and technologies around it, then integrating them into products at a breathtaking pace. Beyond headline-grabbing features, Google laid out a bolder ambition: an operating system for the AI age – not the disk-booting kind, but a logic layer every app could tap – a “world model” meant to power a universal assistant that understands our physical surroundings, and reasons and acts on our behalf. It’s a strategic offensive that many observers may have missed amid the bamboozlement of features.  On one hand, it’s a high-stakes strategy to leapfrog entrenched competitors. But on the other, as Google pours billions into this moonshot, a critical question looms: Can Google’s brilliance in AI research and technology translate into products faster than its rivals, whose edge has its own brilliance: packaging AI into immediately accessible and commercially potent products? Can Google out-maneuver a laser-focused Microsoft, fend off OpenAI’s vertical hardware dreams, and, crucially, keep its own search empire alive in the disruptive currents of AI? Google is already pursuing this future at dizzying scale. Pichai told I/O that the company now processes 480 trillion tokens a month – 50× more than a year ago – and almost 5x more than the 100 trillion tokens a month that Microsoft’s Satya Nadella said his company processed. This momentum is also reflected in developer adoption, with Pichai saying that over 7 million developers are now building with the Gemini API, representing a five-fold increase since the last I/O, while Gemini usage on Vertex AI has surged more than 40 times. And unit costs keep falling as Gemini 2.5 models and the Ironwood TPU squeeze more performance from each watt and dollar. AI Mode (rolling out in the U.S.) and AI Overviews (already serving 1.5 billion users monthly) are the live test beds where Google tunes latency, quality, and future ad formats as it shifts search into an AI-first era. Source: Google I/O 20025 Google’s doubling-down on what it calls “a world model” – an AI it aims to imbue with a deep understanding of real-world dynamics – and with it a vision for a universal assistant – one powered by Google, and not other companies – creates another big tension: How much control does Google want over this all-knowing assistant, built upon its crown jewel of search? Does it primarily want to leverage it first for itself, to save its $200 billion search business that depends on owning the starting point and avoiding disruption by OpenAI? Or will Google fully open its foundational AI for other developers and companies to leverage – another  segment representing a significant portion of its business, engaging over 20 million developers, more than any other company?  It has sometimes stopped short of a radical focus on building these core products for others with the same clarity as its nemesis, Microsoft. That’s because it keeps a lot of core functionality reserved for its cherished search engine. That said, Google is making significant efforts to provide developer access wherever possible. A telling example is Project Mariner. Google could have embedded the agentic browser-automation features directly inside Chrome, giving consumers an immediate showcase under Google’s full control. However, Google followed up by saying Mariner’s computer-use capabilities would be released via the Gemini API more broadly “this summer.” This signals that external access is coming for any rival that wants comparable automation. In fact, Google said partners Automation Anywhere and UiPath were already building with it. Google’s grand design: the ‘world model’ and universal assistant The clearest articulation of Google’s grand design came from Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, during the I/O keynote. He stated Google continued to “double down” on efforts towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). While Gemini was already “the best multimodal model,” Hassabis explained, Google is working hard to “extend it to become what we call a world model. That is a model that can make plans and imagine new experiences by simulating aspects of the world, just like the brain does.”  This concept of ‘a world model,’ as articulated by Hassabis, is about creating AI that learns the underlying principles of how the world works – simulating cause and effect, understanding intuitive physics, and ultimately learning by observing, much like a human does. An early, perhaps easily overlooked by those not steeped in foundational AI research, yet significant indicator of this direction is Google DeepMind’s work on models like Genie 2. This research shows how to generate interactive, two-dimensional game environments and playable worlds from varied prompts like images or text. It offers a glimpse at an AI that can simulate and understand dynamic systems. Hassabis has developed this concept of a “world model” and its manifestation as a “universal AI assistant” in several talks since late 2024, and it was presented at I/O most comprehensively – with CEO Sundar Pichai and Gemini lead Josh Woodward echoing the vision on the same stage. (While other AI leaders, including Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and xAI’s Elon Musk have all discussed ‘world models,” Google uniquely and most comprehensively ties this foundational concept to its near-term strategic thrust: the ‘universal AI assistant.) Speaking about the Gemini app, Google’s equivalent to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Hassabis declared, “This is our ultimate vision for the Gemini app, to transform it into a universal AI assistant, an AI that’s personal, proactive, and powerful, and one of our key milestones on the road to AGI.”  This vision was made tangible through I/O demonstrations. Google demoed a new app called Flow – a drag-and-drop filmmaking canvas that preserves character and camera consistency – that leverages Veo 3, the new model that layers physics-aware video and native audio. To Hassabis, that pairing is early proof that ‘world-model understanding is already leaking into creative tooling.’ For robotics, he separately highlighted the fine-tuned Gemini Robotics model, arguing that ‘AI systems will need world models to operate effectively.” CEO Sundar Pichai reinforced this, citing Project Astra which “explores the future capabilities of a universal AI assistant that can understand the world around you.” These Astra capabilities, like live video understanding and screen sharing, are now integrated into Gemini Live. Josh Woodward, who leads Google Labs and the Gemini App, detailed the app’s goal to be the “most personal, proactive, and powerful AI assistant.” He showcased how “personal context” (connecting search history, and soon Gmail/Calendar) enables Gemini to anticipate needs, like providing personalized exam quizzes or custom explainer videos using analogies a user understands (e.g., thermodynamics explained via cycling. This, Woodward emphasized, is “where we’re headed with Gemini,” enabled by the Gemini 2.5 Pro model allowing users to “think things into existence.”  The new developer tools unveiled at I/O are building blocks. Gemini 2.5 Pro with “Deep Think” and the hyper-efficient 2.5 Flash (now with native audio and URL context grounding from Gemini API) form the core intelligence. Google also quietly previewed Gemini Diffusion, signalling its willingness to move beyond pure Transformer stacks when that yields better efficiency or latency. Google is stuffing these capabilities into a crowded toolkit: AI Studio and Firebase Studio are core starting points for developers, while Vertex AI remains the enterprise on-ramp. The strategic stakes: defending search, courting developers amid an AI arms race This colossal undertaking is driven by Google’s massive R&D capabilities but also by strategic necessity. In the enterprise software landscape, Microsoft has a formidable hold, a Fortune 500 Chief AI Officer told VentureBeat, reassuring customers with its full commitment to tooling Copilot. The executive requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of commenting on the intense competition between the AI cloud providers. Microsoft’s dominance in Office 365 productivity applications will be exceptionally hard to dislodge through direct feature-for-feature competition, the executive said. Google’s path to potential leadership – its “end-run” around Microsoft’s enterprise hold – lies in redefining the game with a fundamentally superior, AI-native interaction paradigm. If Google delivers a truly “universal AI assistant” powered by a comprehensive world model, it could become the new indispensable layer – the effective operating system – for how users and businesses interact with technology. As Pichai mused with podcaster David Friedberg shortly before I/O, that means awareness of physical surroundings. And so AR glasses, Pichai said, “maybe that’s the next leap…that’s what’s exciting for me.” But this AI offensive is a race against multiple clocks. First, the $200 billion search-ads engine that funds Google must be protected even as it is reinvented. The U.S. Department of Justice’s monopolization ruling still hangs over Google – divestiture of Chrome has been floated as the leading remedy. And in Europe, the Digital Markets Act as well as emerging copyright-liability lawsuits could hem in how freely Gemini crawls or displays the open web. Finally, execution speed matters. Google has been criticized for moving slowly in past years. But over the past 12 months, it became clear Google had been working patiently on multiple fronts, and that it has paid off with faster growth than rivals. The challenge of successfully navigating this AI transition at massive scale is immense, as evidenced by the recent Bloomberg report detailing how even a tech titan like Apple is grappling with significant setbacks and internal reorganizations in its AI initiatives. This industry-wide difficulty underscores the high stakes for all players. While Pichai lacks the showmanship of some rivals, the long list of enterprise customer testimonials Google paraded at its Cloud Next event last month – about actual AI deployments – underscores a leader who lets sustained product cadence and enterprise wins speak for themselves.  At the same time, focused competitors advance. Microsoft’s enterprise march continues. Its Build conference showcased Microsoft 365 Copilot as the “UI for AI,” Azure AI Foundry as a “production line for intelligence,” and Copilot Studio for sophisticated agent-building, with impressive low-code workflow demos (Microsoft Build Keynote, Miti Joshi at 22:52, Kadesha Kerr at 51:26). Nadella’s “open agentic web” vision (NLWeb, MCP) offers businesses a pragmatic AI adoption path, allowing selective integration of AI tech – whether it be Google’s or another competitor’s – within a Microsoft-centric framework. OpenAI, meanwhile, is way out ahead with the consumer reach of its ChatGPT product, with recent references by the company to having 600 million monthly users, and 800 million weekly users. This compares to the Gemini app’s 400 million monthly users. And in December, OpenAI launched a full-blown search offering, and is reportedly planning an ad offering – posing what could be an existential threat to Google’s search model. Beyond making leading models, OpenAI is making a provocative vertical play with its reported $6.5 billion acquisition of Jony Ive’s IO, pledging to move “beyond these legacy products” – and hinting that it was launching a hardware product that would attempt to disrupt AI just like the iPhone disrupted mobile. While any of this may potentially disrupt Google’s next-gen personal computing ambitions, it’s also true that OpenAI’s ability to build a deep moat like Apple did with the iPhone may be limited in an AI era increasingly defined by open protocols (like MCP) and easier model interchangeability. Internally, Google navigates its vast ecosystem. As Jeanine Banks, Google’s VP of Developer X, told VentureBeat serving Google’s diverse global developer community means “it’s not a one size fits all,” leading to a rich but sometimes complex array of tools – AI Studio, Vertex AI, Firebase Studio, numerous APIs. Meanwhile, Amazon is pressing from another flank: Bedrock already hosts Anthropic, Meta, Mistral and Cohere models, giving AWS customers a pragmatic, multi-model default. For enterprise decision-makers: navigating Google’s ‘world model’ future Google’s audacious bid to build the foundational intelligence for the AI age presents enterprise leaders with compelling opportunities and critical considerations: Move now or retrofit later: Falling a release cycle behind could force costly rewrites when assistant-first interfaces become default. Tap into revolutionary potential: For organizations seeking to embrace the most powerful AI, leveraging Google’s “world model” research, multimodal capabilities (like Veo 3 and Imagen 4 showcased by Woodward at I/O), and the AGI trajectory promised by Google offers a path to potentially significant innovation. Prepare for a new interaction paradigm: Success for Google’s “universal assistant” would mean a primary new interface for services and data. Enterprises should strategize for integration via APIs and agentic frameworks for context-aware delivery. Factor in the long game (and its risks): Aligning with Google’s vision is a long-term commitment. The full “world model” and AGI are potentially distant horizons. Decision-makers must balance this with immediate needs and platform complexities. Contrast with focused alternatives: Pragmatic solutions from Microsoft offer tangible enterprise productivity now. Disruptive hardware-AI from OpenAI/IO presents another distinct path. A diversified strategy, leveraging the best of each, often makes sense, especially with the increasingly open agentic web allowing for such flexibility. These complex choices and real-world AI adoption strategies will be central to discussions at VentureBeat’s Transform 2025 next month. The leading independent event brings enterprise technical decision-makers together with leaders from pioneering companies to share firsthand experiences on platform choices – Google, Microsoft, and beyond – and navigating AI deployment, all curated by the VentureBeat editorial team. With limited seating, early registration is encouraged. Google’s defining offensive: shaping the future or strategic overreach? Google’s I/O spectacle was a strong statement: Google signalled that it intends to architect and operate the foundational intelligence of the AI-driven future. Its pursuit of a “world model” and its AGI ambitions aim to redefine computing, outflank competitors, and secure its dominance. The audacity is compelling; the technological promise is immense. The big question is execution and timing. Can Google innovate and integrate its vast technologies into a cohesive, compelling experience faster than rivals solidify their positions? Can it do so while transforming search and navigating regulatory challenges? And can it do so while focused so broadly on both consumers and business – an agenda that is arguably much broader than that of its key competitors? The next few years will be pivotal. If Google delivers on its “world model” vision, it may usher in an era of personalized, ambient intelligence, effectively becoming the new operational layer for our digital lives. If not, its grand ambition could be a cautionary tale of a giant reaching for everything, only to find the future defined by others who aimed more specifically, more quickly.  Daily insights on business use cases with VB Daily If you want to impress your boss, VB Daily has you covered. We give you the inside scoop on what companies are doing with generative AI, from regulatory shifts to practical deployments, so you can share insights for maximum ROI. Read our Privacy Policy Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here. An error occured.

If the question, “Who is Meta’s biggest rival?” were on a Family Feud survey, TikTok would likely be the winning answer. In the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case against the Facebook and Instagram owner, the government’s response probably wouldn’t even make the top 10: a small blockchain-based platform called MeWe. MeWe looks a fair amount like Facebook at first glance, except that you make an account using the Frequency blockchain — which the company explains is a decentralized protocol that lets you move your social connections to other (mostly hypothetical at this point) apps that support Frequency. The company says 20 million users have joined, but when I make a MeWe account and log in, I scroll through my autopopulated feed and think, “Who are these people?” I search for a few of my Verge colleagues, figuring if anyone has tried this obscure app, it might be one of them, but I come up short. I try some public figures: Tim Cook? Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerberg? There are some accounts with these names, but it seems unlikely they’re the ones I have in mind.The claim that MeWe is a closer competitor to Facebook and Instagram than TikTok might be baffling if you’re not steeped in antitrust law or the specifics of the FTC’s complaint. Meta CEO Zuckerberg testified he hadn’t even heard of the app before this case was filed. But the FTC has spent the past three weeks laying out its logic. Using Meta’s own internal discussions about how it views itself and its competition, it says that Meta has historically, and to this day, competed in a market for connecting with friends and family online — and when it saw its dominance in that space threatened by the rise of Instagram and WhatsApp, it bought them to squash the competition.Whether Judge James Boasberg buys this could determine who wins the case — if the FTC can also show that Meta acted illegally through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to solidify its alleged monopoly power.Antitrust law is supposed to ensure fair competition, which usually means that people have options for a useful class of goods and services — what’s known as a relevant market. The FTC says that here, that market is “personal social networking services,” or PSNs: spaces where a core purpose is helping people connect with friends and family. While there are many online platforms that overlap with Meta’s services, the FTC argues that virtually none of them serve that market. If internet users want to find and hang out with people they know — as opposed to, say, watching influencers or making work connections — then it’s Mark Zuckerberg’s way or… in the government’s telling, Snapchat, BeReal, and MeWe. Beyond that core definition, PSNs have some other unique features and norms: The apps feature a social graph of users’ friends and family connections, as opposed to mapping users primarily based on their interests. Users can look up and find people they know in real life. And they come to the app to share personal updates with those people.Facebook and Instagram increasingly display videos and photos from influencers and celebrities, but the FTC argues personal social networking remains a core service. It used Instagram chief Adam Mosseri’s testimony to most clearly make this point. In that testimony as well as posts to his own Instagram account, Mosseri said that it’s still important for the app to connect users with their friends. The FTC argues that even if that use case is a smaller portion of what Meta’s apps do these days, it’s still a significant need users have that can virtually only be fulfilled by Facebook and Instagram. While someone might connect with people they know in real life on LinkedIn, they likely won’t primarily share personal updates there. And while they also could follow and interact with people they know on TikTok or YouTube, they’re more likely to passively watch videos from people they don’t.Meta says this is an entirely wrong way to think about it. Social media platforms compete for users’ time and attention, so whether a particular app is squarely aimed at so-called friends and family sharing is beside the point. Facebook and Instagram have evolved to show more content from people like influencers, shifting further from the use case the FTC says Meta has illegally dominated. The company has already landed some important points that could help its case, and it will get more time to push back on the agency’s framing when it calls its own witnesses in the coming weeks.But as the FTC’s case-in-chief continues into its fifth week, its argument for Meta’s dominance is becoming a lot clearer.Why do people use Facebook?When defining a market, each side is trying to answer a key question: why are people choosing one particular company’s product? A lot of goods and services compete with each other in some sense, but this doesn’t mean they serve the same niche. In the case of sodas, for example, “you could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi,” says George Washington Law professor and former FTC Chair Bill Kovacic. In the tech world, Netflix has claimed its biggest competitors are Fortnite and sleep — but those comparisons probably wouldn’t stand up in court.The FTC says that outside of Facebook and Instagram, only apps like Snapchat and MeWe can fulfill a users’ desire to broadcast personal updates with friends and family online. To make its case, it brought in a string of executives from other social media companies to explain why their apps can’t quite scratch the same itch for users. Strava’s former VP of connected partnerships Mateo Ortega testified that sure, users of the fitness-tracking social media app could share baby photos on the platform, but they probably wouldn’t unless it was in a running stroller. “It’s all about fitness, and while you can post other stuff, it just doesn’t seem as relevant,” he said. “You could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi”Pinterest’s former head of user growth Julia Roberts testified that users who come to Pinterest “expecting it to be like other social media apps … tend to be confused about how to use the product.” That’s because the app is so much not about connecting with other people that it works much differently from other social media platforms. Pinterest is more about finding things users are interested in, she said, so “following is not a big part of the Pinterest experience.”TikTok has a tab where users can watch videos from their friends — identified as people who mutually follow each other. But head of operations Adam Presser testified only about 1 percent of videos watched on the platform are there. The company doesn’t think of itself as competing with Meta’s apps for personal social networking, he testified. And even though side-by-side screenshots of TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts look identical, Presser said, “when you click out of this view for these other platforms, you would get to essentially what I think of as their core business,” which for Instagram, includes a feed and stories that often contain at least some content from family and friends.At times, Meta’s cross-examination of rival company executives showed the limits of apps’ similarities. When questioning Apple director of product marketing Ronak Shah, Meta sought to show that group chats in Apple’s messaging feature could serve as a social media feed for friends and family sharing. But Shah testified that feed would be limited to 32 people at most, and users can’t just look up each others’ profiles like they would on social platforms. Still, Meta pointed out, Apple’s messages app is listed under social media on its own app store.However, Meta also made important arguments about why the judge should question the FTC’s framing. It pointed out that some documents from TikTok and YouTube owner Google claiming their products are very different from Meta’s were submitted to foreign officials to try to avoid getting drafted into potentially frustrating regulations. It also pointed out when TikTok briefly went dark in the US ahead of a (now-aborted) ban, users flocked to Meta apps, showing consumers see it as a substitute on at least some level. That’s because, Meta argued, competition for users is really about winning their time and attention.Companies can “sometimes make mistakes. They misjudge who their users are”But X VP of product Keith Coleman testified it’s not that useful to think about competition this way. Instead, “it’s much more helpful to understand what people are trying to accomplish in their lives and to try to help them accomplish that.” Under former CEO Jack Dorsey, then-Twitter leaned into focusing on news and users’ interests, Coleman testified, because that’s why people were coming to the platform. Coleman was later surprised at how his own website characterized the product in its help center as a “service for friends, family, and coworkers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent messages.” “I can’t believe that’s on the website,” he said. “That’s pretty wacky.”This point was “a caution that not everything a company writes down or says is necessarily decisive in establishing what the boundary of a market is,” Kovacic said. Companies can “sometimes make mistakes. They misjudge who their users are.”There are real ramifications for internet users here. Going back to Netflix’s comparisons, if the streaming video service went down, some people would probably be happy to play a video game or get a few hours of shut-eye instead. But others would be frustrated that they couldn’t watch a movie, which is why it’s good that Hulu, HBO, and Amazon Prime Video also exist. The FTC’s argument isn’t that Meta owns the only social apps on the internet, it’s that the company faces little competition for a service many people specifically want — so the fact that you probably don’t know anyone using MeWe is sort of the point.How will the judge decide?Ultimately, Boasberg’s market definition — whether it’s Meta’s, the FTC’s, or his own — will come down to a few things: how Meta views itself, how competitors see it, and his own intuition, says Kovacic. ”Notice how much the FTC has been questioning Meta witnesses on the basis of its own internal documents,” he says. “Does the story in the courtroom match the story of your own internal documents?” So far, the documents have shown that Meta has clocked that at least some portion of users come to its products to connect with family and friends, but also that the rise of TikTok has had it looking over its shoulder. In September 2020, Meta told its board that Instagram revenue would be “meaningfully lower” than planned in the second half of the fiscal year because TikTok was drawing users’ attention. But other internal documents have shown Meta’s well aware that at different points in time, users have come to its apps to connect with family and friends, and worriedly took note of other apps entering that space. In a 2018 presentation, Meta found that the highest percentage of surveyed users said they come to Facebook, Instagram, and Snap to “see daily casual moments” and “see special moments.” By contrast, users came to Twitter’s feed for news and YouTube’s for entertainment. And even as Instagram expands into entertainment, the FTC notes that it still advertises its sign-up page as a place to “see photos and videos from your friends.”“Instagram will always need to focus on friends”In a 2018 email, Zuckerberg told Mosseri that “Instagram will always need to focus on friends.” And even though a lot has changed in the social media landscape since then, Mosseri testified that to this day on the app, “friends are an important part of the experience.” Even though users may share fewer of their own updates on Facebook and Instagram, Mosseri admitted that two friends talking in the comments of a public figure’s post counts as an interaction between friends — and one that Instagram actively tries to facilitate.Meta has argued that this special focus on friends and family sharing makes up a shrinking portion of its offerings as it works to compete with fierce rivals like TikTok. But the FTC says it’s still significant enough to monopolize. It’s a scenario that came up in another major tech monopolization case, Kovacic says: the late-1990s lawsuit US v. Microsoft. In that case, Microsoft argued the Justice Department was ignoring how computing would soon move beyond the personal computer to the Internet of Things, meaning it couldn’t truly lock up the computing ecosystem as much as the government alleged.“Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case said, yeah, those things are happening, but not happening fast enough to deny you real market power in this PC and laptop-based market that the Justice Department is emphasizing,” Kovacic says.Still, he adds, a market niche can at some point become so small that it’s no longer significant in the eyes of antitrust law. “You can have a process of change that ultimately renders the market segment unimportant,” he says. “And the hard task of analysis for the judge is to say, has it already happened?”See More: