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

Open Up vs. Break Up

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#11

Post by dageshi »

I find it kind of fascinating the different mindsets you see around HN regarding Google/Facebook vs say Netflix/Hulu.

With conversations about Netflix and other online content producers people want all the content in the world, at their fingertips for about $15-20 per month and if they can't get it they'll threaten to pirate instead. For them cost but also convenience really trumps all, the idea of having too many services, even if cheaply priced is too much, they just want one.

Compare that to this kind of thread where we have these easy to use single platforms in the form of Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Amazon but here everyone is doing their hardest to try and break them up, make them less convenient and perhaps more expensive (how do you get cheaper than free with more competition?).

Perhaps though, both sentiments are at extremes when it comes to public opinion.

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#12

Post by gist »

topkai22 wrote: post #2

1) Wait, does DuckDuckGo use Bing’s search index? 2) A good solution would do both- open up the underlying data while breaking up the various ad sales businesses. A great example is YouTube- YouTube should not be able to single handedly demonetize videos- creators should be able to opt in to alternative ad networks so long as they aren’t violating the TOS, keeping Tuba instructional videos in the black ( https://arst…

> 1) Wait, does DuckDuckGo use Bing’s search index?

They do what a company called metacrawler did back in the 90's (and I see still does now) but w/o the privacy angle and whatever other bells and whistles DDG adds. It also crawls but I don't know what percentage of that makes up the index. Generally I don't believe it's a very large part from memory.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/duckduckgo-seo/252165/#c...

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#13

Post by mushufasa »

dageshi wrote: post #11

I find it kind of fascinating the different mindsets you see around HN regarding Google/Facebook vs say Netflix/Hulu. With conversations about Netflix and other online content producers people want all the content in the world, at their fingertips for about $15-20 per month and if they can't get it they'll threaten to pirate instead. For them cost but also convenience really trumps all, the idea of having too many se…

Perhaps one distinction is that 'breaking up Google' is really disentangling separate services from one vertically integrated company (Search != GDocs), while what is happening with 'breaking up Netflix' is taking a single category of service and making it worse, less convenient, and more expensive, because it now takes 4 different subscriptions + ui's to navigate to find what used to be under a single service.

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#14

Post by dpwm »

AlphaSite wrote: post #5

This is the model the UK followed when dealing with BTs natural monopoly on phone lines. Openreach owns and is obligated to maintain service to every home in the country and all providers compete to build differentiated services atop the physical hardware.

> Openreach owns and is obligated to maintain service to every home in the country

Except Hull [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#15

Post by furst »

beebmam wrote: post #8
topkai22 wrote: post #2

1) Wait, does DuckDuckGo use Bing’s search index? 2) A good solution would do both- open up the underlying data while breaking up the various ad sales businesses. A great example is YouTube- YouTube should not be able to single handedly demonetize videos- creators should be able to opt in to alternative ad networks so long as they aren’t violating the TOS, keeping Tuba instructional videos in the black ( https://arst…

In my humble opinion, I think the "monetization" of youtube videos has produced a marketplace of clickbait and extreme content. I'd like to roll back the clock to when youtube itself took all (or at least most) of its advertising income from its users' videos.

I mean, it's not hard to avoid clickbait or poor quality content. I'd say that without the prospect of earning money a lot of quality content wouldn't exist. Of course wherever there's income there will be people trying to exploit it, but I think that YouTube wouldn't be what it is today if content creators didn't get paid.

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#17

Post by adamc »

syshum wrote: post #6
aychedee wrote: post #3

Isn't this ignoring the more obvious solution? Why not nationalise them? The value of these networks is in the users. Not the companies themselves.

Nationalizing them is neither obvious nor a solution. Nationalizing them would make any problems, real or perceived, 100x worse.

It would be more persuasive if you actually made the argument, rather than just asserting the conclusion.

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#18

Post by idlewords »

There are some natural fracture planes in the big tech companies where it's clear consumers would be better served by antitrust action:

1) Cleave Instagram and WhatsApp off of Facebook, to reduce the consolidation in Facebook's ad business model, and re-introduce competition both in the messaging and influencer-pouting-at-camera space.

2) Break off Android and Chrome from Google (and each other). Both are products that would do fine on their own, but where right now consumer interests are diametrically opposed to Google's advertising business model.

It's pretty clear that AVC wants to keep the entrenched surveillance business model, but create APIs on top of it for more startups they can fund. But there are ways to apply antitrust that won't make the surveillance problem worse, while reintroducing some competition, and better aligning company incentives with what their consumers want (e.g., allowing Chrome to go all-in on ad blocking).

Re: Open Up vs. Break Up

#20

Post by CodeMage »

dageshi wrote: post #11

I find it kind of fascinating the different mindsets you see around HN regarding Google/Facebook vs say Netflix/Hulu. With conversations about Netflix and other online content producers people want all the content in the world, at their fingertips for about $15-20 per month and if they can't get it they'll threaten to pirate instead. For them cost but also convenience really trumps all, the idea of having too many se…

You're conflating way too many things and oversimplifying the whole situation into a fictitious idea of conflicting mindsets.

First of all, you're treating two very different types of services as equal and identical. Netflix and Hulu are subscription content providers. Google and Facebook can be defined and described in many ways, but subscription content providers is not among them [1]. It's quite natural and understandable that people would have different expectations and complaints.

Second, the situation with content providers isn't binary. The solution to the problem of not being to afford a whole bunch of subscription content providers is not limited to having one become a monopoly.

Third, it's not just cost and convenience when it comes to access to content. Take Spotify Premium, for example. It's a subscription service that gives you access to all the music in its catalog as long as you pay your subscription. Except that there is absolutely no legal way for you to ensure access to any subset of the content. Have a favorite song, album or artist? Tomorrow it might disappear from Spotify's catalog and you have no way of hanging on to it.

Fourth, the concerns that lead people to suggest that Google, Facebook or Amazon should be broken up are varied and nuanced, and they go way beyond cost and convenience.

So no, I don't think you can sum up people's opinions into two seemingly contradictory mindsets.

[1] Yes, I'm aware of YouTube and Spotify having a similar model. That actually happens to be a pretty good argument to break up Google.

Post reply on HN