Live data from Hacker News

Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

nytimes.com

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#161
post #159
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketshare != Monopolizing Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market. Things such as forcing OEMs to not allow linux support, or banning iTunes installation on Windows. Simply being popular isn't the same as a monopoly. Apple has, on the other hand, been monopolizing their iOS devices with the app store. It is the only way to install apps on iOS and Apple has pla…

> Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior You mean like when they actually did and got caught? I'm not sure I understand your take.

We're talking about now, not 20 years ago when they were fined and forced to change their practices.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An overly-censored troll subreddit [1] is far from being evidence of anything, much less voting stances for bipartisan politics in legislature. In fact, any subreddit for that matter is not a good indicator. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-...

The popularity of the topic and its censorship is evidence that the powers-that-be will put down NN wherever they have a chance. What would you use as proxy? r/conservative? They support NN too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6mtvln/net_ne...

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrali...

So is that anecdotal or QED proof that republicans hate net neutrality?

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals "Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them? Who did Carey Wedler harm, for example? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 Or is that "not typical", as in "No True Scotsman"?

For this to be a no-true-Scotsman, I would have to have claimed all bans, which I did not do. It's not an appeal to purity. Since this is the internet and people will nitpick things to death, I said Typically , because in any normalized population of bans you're going to have outlying false negatives and false positives, in which you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one. How do you even know that Anti-Media w…

> you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one

No I didn't, I have been subscribed to her Youtube channel for years, actually. I didn't dig up anything. Even if I had, that wouldn't detract even from iota from it.

Naomi Wu is a similar case: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=naomi%20wu&sort=byDate&prefix&...

I've also had my FB account suspended after 9 years of use, 100+ RL friends, using my real name all along, plenty of photos of me and being in tagged in photos, because apparently, people who wanted me off FB reported my profile as not being a real person. I didn't scan my ID and send it to FB out of principle. Mind you, nothing I posted or commented violated the rules, I never got any "trouble" until I flat out couldn't log in because, I guess, "typically" several accounts reporting a profile means it's fake, and the people who act on those reports probably don't get paid enough to actually take an in-depth look at the profiles they kill.

I'll admit, I'm glad, it was the best thing FB ever did for me. But I'm not all people, for some people that would be terrible, and terribly unfair. I know first hand that there is no process worth a fuck, and people just tend to assume "they wouldn't be treated this way unless there was a good reason for it". It's as old as cowardice and selfishness are.

If "false positives" are just a thing you would accept as long as you aren't hit, then I'll just act as if you were removed in this way. Another unfortunate false positive, nothing to see, really. Then there is also nothing I would have to to "nitpick to death" [by making a single comment with questions you ignore, no less] either, very tidy. If you don't care for due process for others, no due process for you.

> How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.

I take this as the answer "nobody to my knowledge" to the question of who she harmed, and "nope" to the question whether you have actual knowledge of the actual individual cases. "there's going to be outliers" isn't enough, that you resort to saying I "went to lengths to dig up an example" just shows you don't necessarily shy from making authoritative statements about things you don't actually know.

The fact is that the speech was curtailed, if no reason is offered that doesn't mean "maybe there's a good reason, so let's just assume that and move along". You wouldn't want to be treated that way.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The popularity of the topic and its censorship is evidence that the powers-that-be will put down NN wherever they have a chance. What would you use as proxy? r/conservative? They support NN too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6mtvln/net_ne...

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrali... So is that anecdotal or QED proof that republicans hate net neutrality?

Comments/posts of little substance are evidence of manufactured propaganda.

A highly upvoted informed view, on the other hand, that gets removed, is evidence of censorship by those in charge.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#165
post #95

Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes…

> antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to any of these corporations

One, the House Judiciary Committee is also investigating. That not only makes the investigations bipartisan (though the DoJ is technically nonpartisan). It also introduces the potential for new legislation.

Two, there has been consumer harm. It's just not dollar-denominated harm. From a recent New York Times article:

"In 2007, for example, Facebook introduced a program that recorded users’ activity on third-party sites and inserted it into the News Feed. Following public outrage and a class-action lawsuit, Facebook ended the program. 'We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them,' Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, wrote in a public apology.

This sort of thing happened regularly for years. Facebook would try something sneaky, users would object and Facebook would back off.

But then Facebook’s competition began to disappear. Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Later in 2014, Google announced that it would fold its social network Orkut. Emboldened by the decline of market threats, Facebook revoked its users’ ability to vote on changes to its privacy policies and then (almost simultaneously with Google’s exit from the social media market) changed its privacy pact with users.

This is how Facebook usurped our privacy: with the help of its market dominance. The price of using Facebook has stayed the same over the years (it’s free to join and use), but the cost of using it, calculated in terms of the amount of data that users now must provide, is an order of magnitude above what it was when Facebook faced real competition" [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/opinion/privacy-antitrust...

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#166

In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…

> It's almost as if the theory that monopolies inevitably grow to take over the world has serious problems :-)

Even if they don't last forever they cause harm while they are around. The theory isn't that monopolies allow companies to last forever but that they prevent competition and harm consumers.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is a long list of companies and markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny... The real drag on the economy are the high prices of healthcare and housing I'm curious what you see as the antitrust violations that lead to high housing prices?

I don't understand why you're being down voted... It's a valid question. Nothing pops into my head when I imagine a corporation that owns a majority of real estate. It's a conversation worth having.

The closest I can think of is mobile home manufacturing. Berkshire Hathaway has 52% of the market (up from 17% in 2007).

https://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org/industr...

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrali... So is that anecdotal or QED proof that republicans hate net neutrality?

Comments/posts of little substance are evidence of manufactured propaganda. A highly upvoted informed view, on the other hand, that gets removed, is evidence of censorship by those in charge.

Sounds to me like you're just disregarding anything that doesn't fit your narrative of "both sides support NN". A bunch of subreddit posts are not evidence of anything except the trends of a reddit bubble, however, if you're using subreddit posts to justify your position, I don't understand how you can cherry-pick a single post as evidence, but reject an entire page of posts as "manufactured propaganda". I don't think you're posting in good faith, so at this point I am going to stop the conversation on my side.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments/posts of little substance are evidence of manufactured propaganda. A highly upvoted informed view, on the other hand, that gets removed, is evidence of censorship by those in charge.

Sounds to me like you're just disregarding anything that doesn't fit your narrative of "both sides support NN". A bunch of subreddit posts are not evidence of anything except the trends of a reddit bubble, however, if you're using subreddit posts to justify your position, I don't understand how you can cherry-pick a single post as evidence, but reject an entire page of posts as "manufactured propaganda". I don't thin…

I shared aggregated statistics calculated across a whole subreddit's history to make my point. That is a fair basis for discussion.
Post reply on HN