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

Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 184 posts

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#21

Post by naravara »

x220 wrote: post #3

Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.

>The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect.

You could have said the same about AT&T. When they broke it up, they split it into distinct entities. There is no reason we couldn't split it back up into Instagram, WhatsApp, and its other various apps. It also has tons of individual functions and features that are only bundled together because of path dependence. The Marketplace, the news feed, the home page, and the discussion forums/groups are all potentially distinct companies. You could still even have one company in charge of managing identity and authentication and make everything interoperable between the distinct branches.

Setting things up that way would make it look more like a federated platform and would take no small amount of work, both from the private companies and the government (to establish standards). But as things are now nobody has an incentive to design an internet that works like that.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#22

Post by Aunche »

malka wrote: post #5
x220 wrote: post #3

Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.

if such things are meant to be monopolistic, then the state should manage it.

The difference is that you can't really manipulate the power grid to favor a political party. You can do that with Google or Facebook.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#23

Post by ticviking »

x220 wrote: post #3

Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.

If multiple competitors have to achieve interop to provide a similar experience that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#24

Post by mattmaroon »

40acres wrote: post #4

As talked about in this article, I think the main catalyst to increased anti-trust scrunity will be a mind shift away from the "consumer welfare" view of anti-trust. For the most part, big tech companies provide amazing service. I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. Yes there may be some fakes on Amazon, and DDG in some use cases may be better than Google, b…

It's also particularly hard to break up attack company because of the value of their digital real estate. You can break Google up into as many companies as you want, but whichever one owns google.com has been basically unaffected.

It's unclear how you'd break them up in such a way as to meaningfully increase competition in a search market where consumers reflexively turn to Google.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#25

Post by bilbo0s »

naravara wrote: post #21
x220 wrote: post #3

Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.

>The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. You could have said the same about AT&T. When they broke it up, they split it into distinct entities. There is no reason we couldn't split it back up into Instagram, WhatsApp, and its other various apps. It also has tons of individual functions and features that are only bundled together because of path dependence. The Marketplace, th…

>You could have said the same about AT&T...

No you couldn't have, you could use your telephone to call any other telephone on the planet. Even if AT&T did not own the wires.

THAT is the behavior we have to stop. Breaking up tech companies does nothing to solve that problem.

Silos need to be made illegal if you want to stop the tech companies. (And even if you make silos illegal, good luck keeping your social network from knowing what you are searching for on your search engine. That's another one of the fundamental problems not addressed by break ups. Privacy.)

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#26

Post by jpollock »

"when AT&T was broken up in 1984, a torrent of new products came on the market, everything from the first answering machines to early ISPs."

Since the RBOCs were local monopolies, it wasn't the breakup which resulted in the opening of the network.

They didn't have competition until 1996, when the local loop was unbundled, allowing CLECs to appear. The tradeoff was that if they could demonstrate local competition, they were allowed to enter the long distance market.

It was FCC regulation which allowed interconnection of non-approved devices [1]. "In the 1960s and 1970s, the FCC gradually relaxed regulation of telephone terminal equipment (e.g., telephone handsets, private branch exchanges), known as customer premises equipment (CPE)."

[1] https://www.nap.edu/read/10235/chapter/11#298

[2] http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistor...

[3] https://www.mackinac.org/6033

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#27

Post by tracker1 »

dwater wrote: post #15
40acres wrote: post #4

As talked about in this article, I think the main catalyst to increased anti-trust scrunity will be a mind shift away from the "consumer welfare" view of anti-trust. For the most part, big tech companies provide amazing service. I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. Yes there may be some fakes on Amazon, and DDG in some use cases may be better than Google, b…

I was just watching an interview between Scott Galloway and Richard Kramer discussing if the big 4 will be broken up. An insight I hadn't heard before was that anti-trust in the US is based on consumer harm, and since consumers get services from these companies for free, by this measure there can't be consumer harm. However, if you consider the advertisers (who are actually funding everything) are the consumers, they…

I think it works both ways... the advertisers are harmed by lack of competition (though is it really different than only 3 TV networks), and the users are harmed by mismanaged marketing, leaking personal information and as an attack vector.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#28

Post by mattmaroon »

dwater wrote: post #15
40acres wrote: post #4

As talked about in this article, I think the main catalyst to increased anti-trust scrunity will be a mind shift away from the "consumer welfare" view of anti-trust. For the most part, big tech companies provide amazing service. I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. Yes there may be some fakes on Amazon, and DDG in some use cases may be better than Google, b…

I was just watching an interview between Scott Galloway and Richard Kramer discussing if the big 4 will be broken up. An insight I hadn't heard before was that anti-trust in the US is based on consumer harm, and since consumers get services from these companies for free, by this measure there can't be consumer harm. However, if you consider the advertisers (who are actually funding everything) are the consumers, they…

I don't think it's logical to say that just because consumers don't directly pay they aren't harmed. What if increased competition would make it such that there would be a way better search engine than today's Google? It's certainly harder to prove harm than monopolistic price fixing though.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#29

Post by stcredzero »

x220 wrote: post #3

Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.

The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect.

Doesn't it creep you out that one company has a monopoly on the social graph? When we busted up Ma Bell, we basically put into place standards for interoperation. What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? Basically, the idea is that once you're massive enough in social media, you don't get to hold onto your lead purely through the network effect. Staying at the top, just because you're at the top doesn't really promote the general welfare of society or motivate people to make better products.

The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored).

At home, I use Duck Duck Go. It gives good enough results but comes with a better reputation with regards to privacy.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#30

Post by lumberjack »

Zecar wrote: post #6
malka wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if such things are meant to be monopolistic, then the state should manage it.

You want the state in charge of managing communications between friends and family members?

There are technological solutions that could maximize privacy but they are not in use because the private service provider needs to snoop in on your conversations to build a profile of your life. With a public service we could have a system engineered to maximize privacy. Not to mention real transparency and oversight that is no possible with private services.
Post reply on HN