Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 228 posts

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#61

Post by [deleted] »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #35
colordrops wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both right and left wing propaganda is strong and coordinated these days. I can't say anything that doesn't toe the line with either side and not have them look at me like I'm an asshole. I've been called both a socialist welfare state supporter and a reactionary corporate feudalist. Which is it folks. The division is worse than it ever was in my lifetime.

Welcome to identity politics and the over saturation of a politically correct ruling class run amok. If people weren't so fucking reactionary to everything they read, see, hear and experience, we wouldn't be in this mess and rational discourse might have a chance. As it stands, people are so easily offended, there isn't any space for an actual discussion. As someone who considers myself an Independent, I spend hours…

[deleted]

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#62

Post by nickik »

dominotw wrote: post #14
trendia wrote: post #12

The Justice Dept has a very strict definition of monopoly [0] -- it requires both 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. That means that Google receiving 90% of all searches wouldn't automatically imply market power or anti-competitive conduct, and I can't see how Google or Facebook can raise their prices higher than a "competitive market" if they…

How is comcast not a monopoly? That was my only choice when I lived chicago.

They are a local monopoly (and in case of comcast more then just local). But you see this is very different.

This is essentially a state created monopoly, so the left does never really seem to care about them. They were pretty much born as monopolies.

The left is only interested in the 'free market great monopolies and we need to protect the people with regulation narrative'.

The right on the other hand does not really care about things that are nominally private, even if it is a 100% imperfect form of a market. They care about symbolic reduction in the state and the state budget itself, plus why go after somebody that has huge interest that the left not be back in power as that could mean absorption in the state.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#63

Post by Helloworldboy »

ForRealsies wrote: post #59
Helloworldboy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what my comment has to do with libertarianism, or why it's being down voted. I was simply mocking the blatant corporate bootlicking, and the branding of all criticism as evil right wing attacks.

Sitting down to use the internet in 1995-2007 took a certain kind of personality. It was an act that required isolating yourself for long periods of time. "Normies" are very unconcerned, easily distracted, and quickly trusting of Big Apps.

Agreed, it's just weird to think how much that mindset has infiltrated the HN. This place is supposed to be populated by engineers with critical thinking skills, yet any criticism of these large corporations is met with censorship via down votes.

Really makes you think..

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#64

Post by folksinger »

dustingetz wrote: post #53
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #4

The solution really is a revitalization of antitrust policy. The reason markets work is because participants in them are bound to a 'race to the bottom' with many other participants doing the same thing. When companies aren't forced to race to the bottom against each other, the conditions of authoritarianism rise. Authoritarian structures don't have to necessarily come from government - monopolies, oligopolies and im…

Network effects are inherent to networks; you can't regulate away the very thing that makes them valuable to people (well, i dont see how at least)

We make natural monopolies into public institutions. Roads, sidewalks, parks, copyright registrars, postal services, land surveyors, courts, law enforcement, etc, etc.

And then we take an active role in their management.

Notice the difference between the physical activity of helping to maintain these institutions and the physical activity of sitting at your keyboard and typing into an HTML form and hitting the submit button.

Look at what is actually occurring and not just at what is described in what you are reading.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#65

Post by padseeker »

hi-im-mi-ih wrote: post #58
padseeker wrote: post #45

It's very concerning that there is so much influence concentrated within such few hands. However I have to ask - would the WSJ would be so concerned if Google or Facebook were conservative leaning outlets? Normally the WSJ defends this kind of duopoly kind of thing - if either Google or Facebook had some sort of right side leaning the WSJ would be preaching to us about the genius of capitalism and the wisdom of the m…

Can you provide an example of WSJ defending duopolies, or this sort of thing?

I'd actually love to but the WSJ has a paywall. Generally speaking the WSJ editorial page always defends unfettered markets, less regulation, and anything that would be considered pro business. The WSJ calling for some sort of intervention to deal with the duopoly of Google/Facebook is very out of character. Any principled conservative would admit to that.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#66

Post by elefanten »

hi-im-mi-ih wrote: post #58
padseeker wrote: post #45

It's very concerning that there is so much influence concentrated within such few hands. However I have to ask - would the WSJ would be so concerned if Google or Facebook were conservative leaning outlets? Normally the WSJ defends this kind of duopoly kind of thing - if either Google or Facebook had some sort of right side leaning the WSJ would be preaching to us about the genius of capitalism and the wisdom of the m…

Can you provide an example of WSJ defending duopolies, or this sort of thing?

They're pretty warm overall to the telecom industry and tend to side with Ajit Pai.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#67

Post by nickik »

brixon wrote: post #51
dominotw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is comcast not a monopoly? That was my only choice when I lived chicago.

That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections to a minimum user base or geographical area. What would happen otherwise is the providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area. What needs to happen is these granted rights should be re-evalu…

> providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area

That is a argument often made by those ISPs but I don't believe it for a second.

In Sweden remote rual villages get together, fund a fiber connection to their village (and quite often actually help dig) where some companies is allowed to lay fiber but is required to allow any ISP to compete.

The market (and admittedly good general regulation in Sweden) leads to an effect where free people in voluntary association get together with private business).

As long as you have single monopoly access these ISP will never update their infrastructure and voluntary offer higher speed and better service.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#68

Post by kombucha2 »

narrator wrote: post #8

Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would you get fired or ostracized for sharing them? Are you practicing crimethink? After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let…

GAB.ai is sooo lame.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#69

Post by humanrebar »

stale2002 wrote: post #37
humanrebar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement? At some point, America decided that only horizontal monopolies counted, not vertical ones. Many of our concerns about antitrust would be assuaged if regulators started keeping sepa…

Well so, thats because the concept of a vertical "monopoly" makes no sense. A monopoly means that you are the one major player in a certain market. It is in the word. It is definitely possible that a company could have excess market power in a certain SEGMENT of their vertically integrated market, but that is still a horizontal monopoly. Vertical integration isn't a threat to anybody as long as every segment of the m…

Right. Semantic points aside, the claim is that non-trivial vertical integration is bad for market capitalism, bad for consumers, and bad for workers.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#70

Post by nickik »

freeflight wrote: post #39
kelukelugames wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. This might be a generational issue. I have older relatives who can't use more than one app. If at that. Maybe the people who complain about these things are just bad at discovering other apps and platforms.

> Maybe the people who complain about these things are just bad at discovering other apps and platforms. Or maybe some people just want to keep their life as simple as possible, attention economy and all? With my mid-30's I don't consider myself "that old", but just the idea of having to manage through a dozen different messenger apps is driving me super anxious just in the same way I like to have all my email accoun…

Nobody is requiring you to use 12 apps. The point is that there are 12 (and actually many more) apps that people could choice if they were in any way unhappy with their current choice.

Even search, where google has the clearest leads other offers exists.

You can not expect your definition of monopoly to be 'any costumer must be able to immediately switch service without any transaction cost on any of the many, many application any company provides'. That would be pretty insane.

Post reply on HN