Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how downvotes on Hacker News have become a totalitarian attack on free speech.
They're proof of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. That's enough.
Oh the irony.
Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
261–270 of 309 posts
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
> 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"?
Both commments at minus 4?
"dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners"
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#263Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
> 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"?
> To the amalgamation of politicals and criminals, with which the concentration camps began both in Germany and Russia, soon a third element is added, which would soon form the majority of all inmates. This largest group consisted of people who hadn't done anything that stood in any rational relation to their imprisonment, be it in their own mind or in that of their torturers. Without them the camps could have have existed, that is, they would not have survived the first years of the regime.
and
> Criminals don't actually don't belong in a concentration camp. That they still form a permanent category in all camps is, from the viewpoint of the totalitarian power apparatus, a kind of concession to the prejudices of society, which in this way can be made to get used to their existence the most easily.
and
> the first crucial step on the way to totalitarian power is the killing of the juridical person, which in the case of statelessness happens automatically because the stateless person ends up outside of all law. In the case of totalitarian power this automatic killing becomes a planned murder, because concentration camps are always placed outside of the penal system, and the inmates are never to be put there "for punishable or other offenses" (also see Maunz, p. 50). Under all conditions totalitatarian power takes care to put people into the camps, which only are -- Jews, carriers of diseases, members of dying classes -- but have already lost their ability to act, be it for good or bad.
-- Hannah Arendt
But how can marching in goosestep be wrong, when not marching is goosestep is so scary, right?
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chargebacks are overwhelmingly positive. It allows you to use your credit card fearlessly knowing the card companies have your back. Truthfully, if they decreased payment volume or "dragged the economy" card companies wouldn't offer them.
> Chargebacks are overwhelmingly positive. Not in my experience! Chargeback can kill small businesses rather easily. My dad used to run a timber store. His biggest chargeback was around $5k. The 'card owner' who we vetted, by giving correct name, home address and cvc. The 'card owner' asked it to be delivered around the corner (which is not unusual). 48hrs after delivery (1 week after ordering) later the bank did a c…
The issue here is fraud, not the chargeback. The outcome would have been the same with stolen cash, just with more lawyers.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I find your examples convincing. MS still firmly monopolizes desktop OS (over 85% market share there). Sure, that market has lost weight due to the rise of mobile, but last I checked we're all still doing our day jobs on desktop computers, and for most office workers (who aren't developers), that's synonymous with working on a Windows machine. For 20-30 years people have had effectively no freedom to cho…
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…
What does that even mean? Apple is monopolizing their product. Yes, all companies monopolize their own products. That’s the basics of product protection. McDonalds monopolizes their BigMacs and they are miss using that monopoly because you can’t buy a menu that includes Burger Kings Twister fries?
Apple isn’t forced to provide alternative app stores like hacker news isn’t forced to provide third-party plugin support support in their backend, and amazon isn’t forced to allow you to place arbitrary products on their market place. That’s not abuse of monopolies, that’s just having a product and deciding not to be as open some users or nonusers want them to be.
Now if Apple went and told app developers that they will not accept apps that have android versions on the App Store, that would be miss-use of their market position.(and their market position is not a monopoly, there are tons of competitors and Apple only has around 15% market share.)
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#267The Chinese government must be slathering at the mouth about this. Assuming there are some inherent advantages to large tech companies (a collection of smaller companies can't achieve the same economy of scale as one big one), then if America breaks up its large tech companies it will be the perfect opportunity for Chinese ones to fill their place. This would not only expand China's soft power but also their ability…
To the downvoters, I'm curious why you think America weakening its largest tech companies wouldn't help China? The fact that people are calling for breaking up large tech companies suggests they have an unfair advantage over small companies (otherwise they wouldn't need to be broken up), so why wouldn't large Chinese tech companies have an advantage over small, broken up American companies?
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#268In 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. That's a straw man. No one is saying monopolies are immortal. An economy where monopoly usurps monopoly, one after the other in a continuous cycle is a problem, too. If you want a real debate, make the case that the world wouldn't be better off if these tech giants were split up like Ma Bell was in the 1950's a…
AT&T operated as a monopoly until 1984. Antitrust proceedings started in 1974. It had lots of operating subsidiaries like New York Telephone before that, but they were all the same company and system.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chargebacks are overwhelmingly positive. Not in my experience! Chargeback can kill small businesses rather easily. My dad used to run a timber store. His biggest chargeback was around $5k. The 'card owner' who we vetted, by giving correct name, home address and cvc. The 'card owner' asked it to be delivered around the corner (which is not unusual). 48hrs after delivery (1 week after ordering) later the bank did a c…
The issue here is fraud, not the chargeback. The outcome would have been the same with stolen cash, just with more lawyers.
The issue is relative size and power, which does speak to antitrust.
If Visa, MasterCard, Amex, et al., or PayPal make a decision, most businesses have little recourse. The cost of not accepting cards is too high.
Ergo, payment processors can essentially set their own terms.
Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
#270Allow 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.
This is nonsense. You can just buy a different phone -- there are dozens of companies out there.
Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data. At the moment, I have a choice: 1) Buy software funded by spying on me (any Android phone) 2) Buy software funded by selling to me (and iPhone). If they're forced to "open up" their platform, then their revenue stream becomes more difficult, and I don't have choice any more.
If you want to have all your software funded by letting people spy on you, then go for it. But don't take away my choice.