Live data from Hacker News

Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

lareviewofbooks.org

111–120 of 184 posts

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

#111
post #67

Rather than trust busting, why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications? The limits on third-party apps are legal, not technical. It is not technically challenging to build an application that collects Facebook credentials and then presents alternative views and features. It could, for example, finally be possible to see a time-ordered view of your friends' pos…

I think your focus on the CFAA is somewhat missing the point. The assertion being made is that Facebook and Google (and perhaps one or two others, like Amazon and Twitter, maybe) have become so big and so powerful that they are able to act like the trusts of yore, leveraging their data to stop competitors from having any realistic chance of disruption and even affecting other peripherally-related industries. If we suppose open data access to be a remedy, in whole or in part, then "don't allow companies to use the CFAA to stop third-party data scrapers" is an insufficient proposal.

Suppose the CFAA wasn't applied so indiscriminately, but Facebook still didn't want third-party clients to access their data and there was no requirement for them to do so. So they make sure there's no publicly-available API, at least with any terms of service that let you build a true third-party client. Assuming there is still some legal mechanism to make unauthorized access to computer resources illegal, then tapping into Facebook's private APIs counts. Doing what 3Taps and PadMapper did -- just scraping data -- can be a Terms of Service violation (as can the private API access, presumably) and could conceivably even be charged as a copyright violation. It's asking for trouble. It's also potentially a constant cat-and-mouse game. And, last but not least, there's no guarantee that data scraping will actually get you the data that you need to do a good job of building a new business on top of Facebook's social graph.

What would be better, if you accept the original premise, is not new regulation, per se, but antitrust action specific to these companies forcing them to build open APIs. Simply saying "hey, Facebook can't sue you for data scraping anymore" just won't cut it.

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

#112
post #15
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…

From the video you linked, it seems like the primary argument from the start against breaking them up is:

* We can't because they made their services so they can't be broken

and

* They're smarter than the regulators so its no use trying.

I feel like both of those are cop-outs, and to be unchallenged makes me wonder if the two talking have a vested interest in keeping the bigs together (one as a marketing professor and the other being an equity researcher... it seems like they're not ones to push too hard against the status quo).

Point 1 seems silly - if the whole business is structured in such a way to be anti-trust proof, doesn't that mean the management is so worried about a real possibility of being broken up that they've been working to shield it? "Well they've centralized their revenue generation so there's no way to take it apart"? It seems incredibly possible to do so.

Point 2 is tactical - and that can change at any time. With the generational shift starting to happen in politics, the argument that representatives and senators don't understand the business or their products will cease to be true. I'm sure there's plenty of people in the justice department that understand it well enough as well.

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

#113
post #103
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather than trust busting, why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications? Cute phrasing, but what this really means is "why not force anyone who develops a product to allow others to capitalize on it?" > It seems premature to pursue trust busting action while we still have federal laws that encourage and cement the dominance of a single provider. You mean "all…

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not proposing that Facebook be _forced_ to allow third-party access, which would carry the risks you've pointed out. I'm simply proposing the federal government not aid them in their market dominance. Facebook could still prevent third-party applications from functioning, but it would have to do so by methods inside of the HTTP specification rather than legal ones. For example, it…

It seems like the argument is for large-scale IP protection reform. What one could do there is create an actual new class of asset in "data" with different rules so that traditional asset law doesn't apply.

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

#114
> Tarbell’s 19-part exposé on Rockefeller’s Standard Oil would mark a turning point in setting public sentiment against the trusts.

Seems modern tech monopolies have it much better, with far more control over the information the public sees and can share with each other. Particularly when they start buying up newspapers. Whatever the practicalities of going against them in this way, that's going to cause complications.

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

#115
post #56
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's ActivityPub, not OStatus!

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

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. The first step towards saner attitude towards tech is stopping with this glorification of tech. With the exception of Google or say wikipedia, who have made knowledge accessible in unprecedented manner, modern technology companies (the name is imprecise, because it is really just digital technology) have not as much im…

> Slack, one of the most valuable companies in recent years, is a reskinned IRC that eats more RAM. in a certain sense you're not wrong, but this is almost infamous-Dropbox-comment level of missing the point. IRC is a great technology and is pretty useful if you only need to communicate with other tech nerds. it's not a very inviting technology to lay users and businesses though. on the client end, the default config…

This circles back to the original point of the article about consumer welfare as a top priority when it comes to anti-trust.

Yes, Slack no doubt provides some value by easing access to some technology for people who previously could not access it, but if this comes at the cost of deep innovation and hard performance, it will compound long term issues.

This seems to be a general theme of the web. User acquisition and comfort is placed above all else, while performance and structural innovation are neglected.

If aerospace engineers would build planes the way we build webapps the planes would double in size and fuel consumption every five years. If those engineers were employed by a web startup we would tell them not to worry as long as the user numbers grow and the seats are comfortable.

when it comes to anti-trust, and evaluating technology in general, we need to be a lot more critical of consumer welfare as a meaningful measure. Yes. 'dropbox guy' was wrong when the metric is collected startup money and user convenience. Will he have been wrong in 30 years when we evaluate what the web is and what it could have been if it was built with more rigor?

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

#117
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is a product, not a monopoly.

I said "monopoly rent." It's a term with a specific definition that you would do well to understand.

Pretty much any definition of "monopoly rent" I've found does actually require the existence of a monopoly. Also, there's no reason to talk down to people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Monopoly_rent

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

#118
post #87
post #67

Rather than trust busting, why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications? The limits on third-party apps are legal, not technical. It is not technically challenging to build an application that collects Facebook credentials and then presents alternative views and features. It could, for example, finally be possible to see a time-ordered view of your friends' pos…

> Rather than trust busting, why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications? Cute phrasing, but what this really means is "why not force anyone who develops a product to allow others to capitalize on it?" > It seems premature to pursue trust busting action while we still have federal laws that encourage and cement the dominance of a single provider. You mean "all…

>Cute phrasing, but what this really means is "why not force anyone who develops a product to allow others to capitalize on it?"

Or maybe that could be the form of trust-busting: by default, you don't have to give the access to the data, but if you're found to be an abusive monopolist, then you can be forced to.

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

#119
post #67

Rather than trust busting, why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications? The limits on third-party apps are legal, not technical. It is not technically challenging to build an application that collects Facebook credentials and then presents alternative views and features. It could, for example, finally be possible to see a time-ordered view of your friends' pos…

Facebook allows users to easily export their data as a compressed archive.

Why not have the third party app access exported archives and not Facebook servers?

This way users could at least be made aware of the features they are missing. Ones that might be better for users but not necessarily better for Facebook.

For example, organising and searching through past data could be made much more efficient, reducing the time users need to spend on the Facebook website/app.

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

#120
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. What? The telephone exchange (run by Bell) had to actually make the connection for you. If you were not paying them for phone service your calls weren't getting connected. And they owned the entire vertical stack for phone service, from producing the handsets to leasing/selling the phones…

>What? The telephone exchange (run by Bell) had to actually make the connection for you....

Exactly, and Facebook will not make an open connection for you to another social network. Any connection is strictly limited to protect Facebook's sovereignty over you. It would be like At&T making a connection to Sumatra for you, but only if you confine your discussion to the size of pants you wear. No other information would be allowed to be discussed. If you tried to even say your name, AT&T would automatically mute those parts of the conversation.

You cannot openly connect to another social network and move your data wherever you please. If you switch without moving your data, you cannot openly talk back to your friends who may still be on the old social network. ie - these are SILOS. And that's the behavior we should be targeting. You could go through the AT&T network back in the 70's and talk to someone in Sumatra, or Paris on a completely different national network not provided by AT&T. If you want to openly connect with someone in Sumatra or Paris via social network today, you have to be on the same social network. These networks are not open. What we need are laws obliging them to be open.

Trust busting does not do that, all it does, at best, is give you multiple siloed social networks to choose from. (But it probably wouldn't even do that. It would likely just separate, say, youtube from google. Or separate instagram from facebook. We're still left with silos.)

Post reply on HN