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

Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 309 posts

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

#211

Post by cactca »

Johnny555 wrote: post #199
cactca wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two prominent examples of antitrust/monopoly problems in the U.S. real estate market: MLS and dual agency. The MLS seems to be complicit in forcing home sellers into paying higher buyer agent commissions: https://therealdeal.com/national/2019/05/22/doj-demands-core... With consolidation of real estate brokerage firms, many home buyers may have overpaid due to a single firm representing both home seller and…

I agree that being forced into 6% commission regardless of the effort it took to buy/sell your house is a problem, I don't think that extra few percent is what's pricing people out of buying a home.

The effective cost implications are more likely 10-12% at each sale. A seller will try to increase the price of the house to cover these commissions.

Your comment is focused on buying a home, but there can be dramatic consequences for home owners, the stakeholders forced into paying both agents.

When a seller has little equity and a poor housing market, exiting a primary mortgage can be financially impossible. A recent survey found a large fraction of the US can't handle a surprise $400 expense. So the follow-on effects of these commissions are not trivial for a large swath of the country.

I also agree that depending on location (looking at you SF metro) there are much bigger factors, e.g. constrained supply, inflating home prices.

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

#212

Post by remarkEon »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #83
vturner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the down votes prove your point... Incredible.

Or perhaps its just a reminder to the user that free speech does not need to be extended by private organizations...They have in their TOS to remove content they do not deem fit in the same way users do not need to use these services.

Was it okay for communists to be blacklisted in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s? I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist.

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

#213

Post by remarkEon »

jyrkesh wrote: post #39
not_a_moth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.

Since a while. I'm definitively not a right-winger, but I increasingly have to align myself with folks whose speech I hate in order to defend free speech against folks I agree with on issues. Too many on the left are gleeful at the thought of deplatforming any and all of their detractors.

If we're being honest here, "Free Speech" has never really been a true philosophical maxim in this country. It's been a useful tool to acquire political and then, once acquired, it's jettisoned as a principle.

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

#214

Post by joshuamorton »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #183
chiefalchemist wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "...he US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed..." It's difficult for me to imagine the Justice Dept being able to argue that "customers" were harmed...using services that were free.

> It's difficult for me to imagine the Justice Dept being able to argue that "customers" were harmed...using services that were free. C'mon, not offering any choice in how you pay for the service is inherently anti-consumer behavior. It's certainly not free, and they certainly never offer the consumer any insight into exactly how they are paying for it.

> C'mon, not offering any choice in how you pay for the service is inherently anti-consumer behavior.

This might be the best take I've heard yet. What constitutes choice in method of payment. Since it appears you consider "forcing users to pay with data" to be anti-consumer, is "forcing users to pay with dollars" equally anti-consumer? Does that make, like, restaurants that don't let you pay with personal info anti-consumer? What about companies that take data and don't offer anything in return (Equifax et. al, ISPs, etc.)

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

#215

Post by stcredzero »

bduerst wrote: post #209
stcredzero wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of the word "Monopoly" is already widely denoted as supply side control: That's obviously too narrow. Someone controlling the demand side could be just as obnoxious. A company in a company town is in control of the demand side of the labor market, for example.

So you think Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia, and Investopedia are all too narrow with words? Control of the demand side of a market is called a Monopsony , not Monopoly . It's mentioned in the thread above, more info here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp

You are correct, sir! I remember now HN has had this discussion before. However, I think most people would refer to both a Monopsony and Monopoly as the latter.

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

#216

Post by Wowfunhappy »

fyoving wrote: 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…

The fact that I can't purchase any software for my iPhone without Apple taking a 30% cut absolutely harms me as a consumer. It naturally leads to higher prices.

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

#217

Post by cpuguy83 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #216
fyoving wrote: 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…

The fact that I can't purchase any software for my iPhone without Apple taking a 30% cut absolutely harms me as a consumer. It naturally leads to higher prices.

I think you would have a hard time proving this, because software prices are much (much) cheaper than they were pre-app store.

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

#218

Post by wavefunction »

cpuguy83 wrote: post #217
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that I can't purchase any software for my iPhone without Apple taking a 30% cut absolutely harms me as a consumer. It naturally leads to higher prices.

I think you would have a hard time proving this, because software prices are much (much) cheaper than they were pre-app store.

That assertion seems harder to prove than the assertion that a 30% built-in cost leads to higher prices.

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

#219

Post by feynmanistheman »

fyoving wrote: 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…

As the article goes into, the consumer welfare standard that you mention is an interpretation of the Sherman Act, not a cut-and-dry statutory phrasing. Changes in either judicial thought or legislation could still put "big tech" in danger, even if they don't run afoul of the consumer welfare standard. I would hope that questions of competition and influence would be asked in the digital age, hopefully without the malign influence of the media and "whiny competitors."

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

#220

Post by cpuguy83 »

btilly wrote: post #104
WalterBright wrote: post #27

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…

Don't forget AT&T. They became a monopoly, and wiped out everyone else. Whole industries would have probably not arisen if they hadn't been blocked by anti-trust. And then they were split up. If you have a land line, odds are that your local phone, your long distance service, and your cell carrier are all carried by pieces of AT&T. Pieces that would have reassembled if not blocked by anti-trust. And even if your prov…

At the same time, it was Bell Labs that invented the transistor and other incredibly important things. What would the world have been like without a Bell Labs?
Post reply on HN