Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by antidesitter » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #175

dahfizz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> general public > front page of r/technology If you think the average person follows r/technology, you may live in a bubble.

Point is people who understand NN support it. I did not mean to imply non-techies get it, only that when they do, they largely support it.

> Point is people who understand NN support it.

Absolutely wrong. Among people who understand NN and oppose it are people like Bob Kahn, Marc Andreessen, David Farber, David Clark, Louis Pouzin, and Jeff Pulver, not to mention numerous economists.

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

#302

Post by studentrob » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 12:07 AM UTC

antidesitter wrote: post #301

studentrob wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point is people who understand NN support it. I did not mean to imply non-techies get it, only that when they do, they largely support it.

> Point is people who understand NN support it. Absolutely wrong. Among people who understand NN and oppose it are people like Bob Kahn, Marc Andreessen, David Farber, David Clark, Louis Pouzin, and Jeff Pulver, not to mention numerous economists.

Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007, and it's about legislation, not policy, so it could have meant something different at that time.

It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. Regional broadband monopolies can strong arm content providers for higher prices by zero-rating services that become "part of the [insert telecom name here] network".

Regional broadband monopolies suck.

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

#303

Post by taurath » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 12:08 AM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #279

taurath wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.

Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself? You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly ha…

You're the one who seems emotional.

Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.

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

#304

Post by antidesitter » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 12:51 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #302

antidesitter wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Point is people who understand NN support it. Absolutely wrong. Among people who understand NN and oppose it are people like Bob Kahn, Marc Andreessen, David Farber, David Clark, Louis Pouzin, and Jeff Pulver, not to mention numerous economists.

Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007, and it's about legislation, not policy, so it could have meant something different at that time. It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. Regional broadband monopolies can strong arm content providers for higher prices by zero-rating services that…

> Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007

You must not have searched very thoroughly. Here’s the first article that came up when I searched “David Farber net neutrality”: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-savi...

> it could have meant something different at that time

Nope. It meant basically the same thing it does today.

> It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it.

The firms and investors backing NN also stand to benefit from it, so this ad hominem is moot.

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

#305

Post by studentrob » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 3:29 AM UTC

antidesitter wrote: post #304

studentrob wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007, and it's about legislation, not policy, so it could have meant something different at that time. It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. Regional broadband monopolies can strong arm content providers for higher prices by zero-rating services that…

> Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007 You must not have searched very thoroughly. Here’s the first article that came up when I searched “David Farber net neutrality”: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-savi... > it could have meant something different at that time Nope. It meant basically the same thing it does today. > It is unsurprising…

> You must not have searched very thoroughly.

You're being fairly condescending while assuming I should read the biographies of 7 people based on your brief comment. I'll make this my last comment.

Here is a video titled to make you believe Bob Kahn is against network neutrality [1]. Net neutrality does not come up until the question & answer period. Bob states that the word is just a slogan and that you need to look at what is intended by policy. His response is long, nuanced, and he points out several times that he is against policy that would fracture the internet. And again, that was in 2007.

In 2019, we have a better idea of what net neutrality policy looks like, and we know that ISPs abuse it because they are regional monopolies. Countries that do not have regional monopolies do not seem to have such issues of abuse.

So, there are two options to foster sufficient competition. Bring back net neutrality, or eliminate regional broadband monopolies.

[1] https://youtu.be/ZnP5ZgfnN58?t=6228

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

#306

Post by remarkEon » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

maxheadroom wrote: post #258

remarkEon wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist. The way this reads to me is: If you were against it, it could only be because you were a communist. #mcCarthyism

It’s a reference to a rather famous text from Martin Niemöller, about what happened in Nazi Germany.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

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

#307

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #303

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself? You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly ha…

You're the one who seems emotional. Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.

>Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit.

Nope. You are now not only misunderstanding 2A, but 1A as well. A government body can not require a fee for a protest that does not impact normal property function (traffic, police, park use) and that fee can not exceed the actual costs. Nor can a government deny an organization based on content grounds. This example is bad.

If there are taxes on "lots" of other rights, and you used a poor example, I look forward to other examples to try and see your point of view.

>If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia?

Well, because MILITIA means "any able bodied adult who can fight for defense of self or state", I am a member of the militia, and unfortunately so are you.

The words you are looking for aren't "well organized" but the text of 2A is "well regulated" which according to Oxford 1800 means "Well training, in good working order". Not "lots of regulations" and not as you imply "well organized" like a milita requires a phone tree if someone's going to be out sick on war days.

>Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.

It's interesting how when presented with ACTUAL EFFECTS of a proposal (try me on any of them and I'll school you) you chose instead to wholly believe the propaganda. Which is exactly what it is, I mean... Who could ever be against "Universal Background Checks"!? Those have to be good thing and can't possibly be a tax on a right, an avenue for defacto ban, unenforceable, and an unconstitutional restriction on the free trade of personal property covered under an explicitly enumerated right.

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

#308

Post by tracker1 » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

Meekro wrote: post #103

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…

Visa and Mastercard have a pretty effective duopoly, too! Their fees and chargeback procedures are a drag on the entire economy. Getting banned by them effectively kills your ability to accept payments, and many legal but politically unpopular businesses find themselves in the crosshairs.

I'm pretty sure that they should be included as well here... the bigger issue is at what point, and to what extent should civil rights protections extend to publicly available platforms. ie Public Spaces in Private Ownership.

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

#309

Post by arcticbull » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #269

indymike wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 'buyer' still has the goods, and now has the money too. You can sue, and probably get them arrested for fraud. If they have the identification information they say they do, it should be a slam-dunk case. It's as though they walked in and took the lumber after closing time. The system isn't to blame, the clown who defrauded the mom and pop shop committed a crime, and there's lots of ways to do that.