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

51–60 of 184 posts

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

#51

Post by ucaetano »

tivert wrote: post #46
shereadsthenews wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and doesn't pay anyone for transit). If you are taking a consumer benefit angle I don't see how you conclude that Google should have been prevented from buying YouTube.

> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and doesn't pay anyone for transit). Even if that's true (which I doubt), Google is not the only company that owns fiber. > If you are taking a consumer benefit angle I don't see how you conclude that Google should have been prevented from buying YouTube. The GP wa…

> Even if that's true (which I doubt), Google is not the only company that owns fiber.

Would you rather have Verizon owning YouTube?

Every single telco has tried to launch their own YT. They launched, and every single one of them failed.

The reason they keep failing is that they are telcos, their core capabilities do not play well with an open, network agnostic, consumer-driven video service. They'll prioritize their own content and their own network (look at Verizon and "Oath").

If you "deleted" YouTube, and both Amazon, Google, Verizon, AT&T launched video services, which ones do you think would succeed? Definitely Google's, maybe Amazon's, definitely not Verizon's or AT&T's.

Google happens to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company that owns infrastructure, not an infrastructure company trying to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

mattmaroon wrote: post #24
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.

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by rifung »

I work for Google, opinions are my own.

Have there been any studies or anything on how having or breaking up large companies affects a country's competitiveness on a global scale? I feel like an extremely large company may be more competitive but this may come at the expense of other companies in the same or other industries.

FWIW I personally agree with using antitrust to break up companies that don't harm consumers despite currently benefiting from the system.

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

#54

Post by mtgx »

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.

Even so, Facebook itself would eventually die out, as people would get bored with "social media", or at least the type of social media that Facebook embodies. How do I know this? Because I'm already seeing the trend for it. The trend might not be huge right now but no big trend is. After all, solar panels have been on a rising trend since the 80's, but its nominal growth only started to be noticeable by 2010 or so.

The problem is that Facebook is allowed to buy out any potential Facebook-replacements, too, and thus be allowed as a company to continue its monopoly almost indefinitely. If Instagram is the "new Facebook" then Facebook shouldn't have been allowed to touch it. And if it already touched it, the government should split them up, as they did AT&T, for the public good. Same with WhatsApp.

My guess is Facebook wants to integrate the three now primarily because it wants to use the excuse that it "can't" neatly separate the platforms anymore and that users will rebel against the government if they attempt that. So if politicians plan to bust Facebook, they should do it soon.

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

#55

Post by ucaetano »

mtgx wrote: post #48
shereadsthenews wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and doesn't pay anyone for transit). If you are taking a consumer benefit angle I don't see how you conclude that Google should have been prevented from buying YouTube.

Someone one else would've bought YouTube. Or Vimeo would have become the #1 video site, and then maybe Microsoft or Amazon would have bought it. Still better than Google alone owning most of the biggest traffic sites.

> Someone one else would've bought YouTube

Google is probably the only non-telco who owns significant infrastructure. So other than Google, the only other option for YouTube would have been a telco.

Are you sure you'd want a telco owning YouTube? Can you imagine how awful it would be?

Vimeo is owned by IAC, who then owned AskJeeves, TripAdvisor, HotWire, LendingTree and today owns Tinder, OkCupid, Match.com, The Daily Beast, etc.

You sure you'd want the top video website owned by IAC?

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

#56

Post by eitland »

x220 wrote: post #14
roguecoder wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason for that is because they have been allowed to build a walled garden. Interoperable protocols would allow other companies to innovate on an equal playing field. Indeed if we follow the Bell example, the networked platform could be forced to be separate from those who profit off of it.

Can you name some successful interoperable protocols used by social networks that allow for meaningful innovation and updates? All I can think of is Agora* (which no one uses) and IRC (which hasn't added nontrivial features in a very, very long time).

Whatever protocol (Ostatus?) connects my write.as account with my mastodon account and everyone else seems to be enabling meaningful innovation now.

And between your examples there's also XMPP.

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

#57

Post by dbt00 »

jpollock wrote: post #26

"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, the…

I think the post you're responding to is thinking of the unleashing of non-Bell-owned equipment on AT&T lines. This was prohibited by AT&T until the FCC forced them to drop this provision. Commonly known as the Carterphone decision, this happened in 1968. Fax machines, modems, answering machines and other devices were mostly only possible after this change.

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

#58

Post by shereadsthenews »

tivert wrote: post #46
shereadsthenews wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and doesn't pay anyone for transit). If you are taking a consumer benefit angle I don't see how you conclude that Google should have been prevented from buying YouTube.

> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and doesn't pay anyone for transit). Even if that's true (which I doubt), Google is not the only company that owns fiber. > If you are taking a consumer benefit angle I don't see how you conclude that Google should have been prevented from buying YouTube. The GP wa…

Any legal theory under which it would have been better for Level3 to buy YouTube than it has been for Google to buy it is, IMHO, worth no further consideration.

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

#59

Post by treis »

ucaetano wrote: post #55
mtgx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone one else would've bought YouTube. Or Vimeo would have become the #1 video site, and then maybe Microsoft or Amazon would have bought it. Still better than Google alone owning most of the biggest traffic sites.

> Someone one else would've bought YouTube Google is probably the only non-telco who owns significant infrastructure. So other than Google, the only other option for YouTube would have been a telco. Are you sure you'd want a telco owning YouTube? Can you imagine how awful it would be? Vimeo is owned by IAC, who then owned AskJeeves, TripAdvisor, HotWire, LendingTree and today owns Tinder, OkCupid, Match.com, The Dail…

>Google is probably the only non-telco who owns significant infrastructure. So other than Google, the only other option for YouTube would have been a telco

What about Amazon or Microsoft?

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

#60

Post by zer00eyz »

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…

> Standard Oil you have more tangible view of what the monopoly looks like: the oil company owns the fields, the railroads, the refineries, the whole damn stack.

Standard oil is a great example but your describing vertical integration.

Lets take an amazing example of vertical integration that you might experience often but take zero note of. YKK zippers: from the metal smelting for the finished product to the machines they are made ON YKK owns all of it! https://ykknorthamerica.com/the-ykk-difference/vertical-inte...

Do other people make zippers? Sure! But use of YKK is costly and a statement of quality on the product around it. Google at this moment isn't any different. If you cut yourself off from google your cutting off lots of secondary companies that use their services (No maps, no uber, no Lyft as an example).

Google looks a hell of a lot more like YKK today than standard oil.

Post reply on HN