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

121–130 of 184 posts

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

#121

Post by yonran »

krrrh wrote: post #100
yonran wrote: post #68

The moat that each tech company owns is its network. Rather than trust-busting these companies up into their different businesses, I think it would promote more competition to impose network interoperability requirements once the network is entrenched for too long. A useful example is craigslist: a company with virtually no innovation for decades that still dominates the classified listings space. Other companies tha…

What you're proposing would institute CL as a de facto utility in perpetuity with an API that innovated at the rate of the old Ma Bell. It may be true that craigslist dominates "classified ads" in a lot of markets, but there has been a constant chipping away at their marketshare by marketplaces unbundling various aspects of the service and doing it better. It's hard to believe, but prior to AirBnB & VRBO people used…

> What you're proposing would institute CL as a de facto utility in perpetuity with an API that innovated at the rate of the old Ma Bell.

I don’t think so. For one thing, requiring established networks to be interoperable can enable other companies to create their own enhancements with additional features (e.g. 3Taps, PadMapper, MSN Messenger), so the original network is not the only game in town and is incentivized to innovate faster. For another thing, requiring open protocols does not mean the process needs to be slow; there are slow standards consortiums (e.g. W3C), and there are reasonably fast ones (e.g. WHATWG). I’m not even sure that a consortium would be required; perhaps a company can satisfy its interoperability requirement simply by documenting its API and authorizing competitors to use that API.

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

#122

Post by kybernetikos »

kauffj wrote: 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 agree with this - in the recent discussion on Slate Star Codex about Thiel's views, the point was made that outsize success and profits are generally a sign of lack of competition.

To me, after a reasonable period for them to capitalise on their innovation/higher quality execution, any company making huge profits in an area with few competitors should be subject to a range of measures designed to reduce barriers to entry to make it easier for new competitors to emerge.

Some natural ones would include rules about standards, providing apis, user portability, etc.

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

#123

Post by nopriorarrests »

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…

>> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists.

>Even if that's true (which I doubt)

Literally one hour ago Alphabet CFO went thru some advanced mental gymnastics to avoid straight answers about youtube profitability:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19080868

- No youtube breakout of revenues, Again not a bullish sign for that division, stil nothing on youtube on the call.

- EDIT on the earnings call they did talk briefly about Youtube, no real new numbers though, just their assurance that youtube is crushing it

- Porat is doing gymnastics to talk about youtube but not actually say anything about youtube. Are youtbue numbers really that bad????

So, it seems that OP is mostly correct in his assumption. Normally CFO of public companies are not shy talking about their successful bets.

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

#124

Post by kryogen1c »

colemannugent wrote: post #40
kryogen1c wrote: post #7

As a self-defined libertarian, I think one of the most critical functions a government is responsible for is anti-trust and Monopoly busting. This is one of the critical issues of our time, but is only a symptom of the corruption of Congress, which is a deep topic in it's own right. Free markets are like any hierarchy, and if theres no regulation mechanism the powerful will dominate the less powerful. I think history…

The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place. Here are some pretty standard arguments: https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli... https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? I don't think I'v…

> The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place. > Here are some pretty standard arguments: >https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli.... >https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

These seem like they can be summarized as regulatory capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I definitely agree this exists. However, totally free markets can be dominated by monopolies through different mechanisms. new technology is monopolistic in nature because it often starts from a single/few place(s). Incumbent corporations can amass orders of magnitude of wealth making it functionally impossible to compete. This has become less prolific in the last 2-3 decades, but has been painfully true at every other point in human history when physical resistance (violent or nonviolent) was the only way to affect change.

This, by the way, assumes no purposeful anti-competitive behavior. Current anti-trust law requires houses where I live to be serviced by mutiple ISPs, so me (and almost everyone I've ever met, residence or corporate) have a huge menu of choices from company A, or a 56Kbps line from company B. What a coincidence -.-

> I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with?

Not particularly.

> I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon.

I think most Libertarianism has become a refugee camp for people recognizing and fighting government corruption rather than a conscientious political philosophy on it's own.

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

#125

Post by danra »

taurath wrote: post #82
kauffj wrote: 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…

Even if it were legal (which it should be IMO), I can't see anything other than a cat and mouse game happening where the primaries change their authentication patterns on a daily, hourly or minute to minute basis. Consider all the things that facebook does to mess with scrapers right now - every single letter in a div, multiples that are hidden, etc. Its a complete mess. "Forced open APIs" is an interesting idea in t…

> every single letter in a div

That's... I... Well. :0

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

#126

Post by kryogen1c »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #35
kryogen1c wrote: post #7

As a self-defined libertarian, I think one of the most critical functions a government is responsible for is anti-trust and Monopoly busting. This is one of the critical issues of our time, but is only a symptom of the corruption of Congress, which is a deep topic in it's own right. Free markets are like any hierarchy, and if theres no regulation mechanism the powerful will dominate the less powerful. I think history…

This doesn't sound like a liberatarian, at least not in the US. The one with the strongest competitive greed who wins the most money/power is viewed as the end-goal and the most successful under the ideology. Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism for they had the highest wealth and are assumed to have the highest drive to have the most wealth. Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people…

> Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism > Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people should constrain avarice or rich and powerful. Greed is always good under libertarianism. > So, you shouldn't, as a libertarian, propose trust-busting regulation for Facebook, as this is the opposite of libertarian.

I agree that what you described is the opposite of what I described, but I don't think what you described is in any way representative of Libertarianism. Money is thought to be a good motivator because it's inherent and other people's desire will counterbalance and propel everyone forward.

What you're describing sounds more like sound bites from the 1%\99% movement than any political or economic philosophy I've heard or read.

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

#127

Post by nopriorarrests »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #79
twblalock wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? If we open up Facebook's data to other companies, what makes you think those companies are willing and capable of securing the data and respecting user privacy? Facebook having all of that data is bad enough. Requiring Facebook to share it with other companies would not make t…

For one, where sharing of data is concerned, none of this is about forcing Facebook to give your data to some random third party that asks for it. It is about you as a user being able to demand from Facebook that they make your data (or some selection of it) accessible to some third party of your choice. But also, and maybe more importantly, interoperation does not really necessarily require any sharing of data. Thin…

>It is about you as a user being able to demand from Facebook that they make your data (or some selection of it) accessible to some third party of your choice.

What's the point of making _my_ data accessible? AFAIR under GDPR facebook already can provide you all your data in downloadable form, at least if you are in EU.

If we want to break Facebook network effect, you need much more.

I, being early adopter, move to new service, called Bookface, and now I want to talk with my friends, who are still using FB. So I ask Bookface to connect to FB and suck the latest updates about these 1000 people, because they are my friends. Hmmm...

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

#128

Post by nopriorarrests »

scotty79 wrote: post #17
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 just split Google in half into Goo and Gle and force them to publish protocols their services use so they can share the network. This could also allow smaller players to join the network. At the beginning you could bounce people going to google.com at random to goo.com or gle.com until they start prefering one or the other…

>Until there is one Google, there is one strategy that can be tried at one time. This harms progress.

I mean, have you seen the full list of google chat apps? You call it "one strategy that can be tried at one time"?

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

#129

Post by sumeno »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #79
twblalock wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? If we open up Facebook's data to other companies, what makes you think those companies are willing and capable of securing the data and respecting user privacy? Facebook having all of that data is bad enough. Requiring Facebook to share it with other companies would not make t…

For one, where sharing of data is concerned, none of this is about forcing Facebook to give your data to some random third party that asks for it. It is about you as a user being able to demand from Facebook that they make your data (or some selection of it) accessible to some third party of your choice. But also, and maybe more importantly, interoperation does not really necessarily require any sharing of data. Thin…

How does your idea of interoperation work for the read flow? How do I see my friends posts on your Facebook competitor without their Facebook data being shared with that competitor?

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

#130

Post by sumeno »

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.

Which state?
Post reply on HN