Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#451

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, May 16, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #247

c1b wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how making books cheap is considered a failing.

You could have made the same argument about Standard Oil - until the competition were crushed and prices went up. Which is why lower consumer prices aren't a valid defence against anti=trust. Nor is the argument that markets "naturally" lead to monopolies or (at best) oligopolies and cartels - even though empirically they do. So much so that setting out to create a monopoly is a bullet point on many unicorn-wannabe b…

When it comes to books, Amazon didn't abuse their power. The big fights were because Amazon wanted to set their own prices in their own store, something that is pretty standard in most markets.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#452

Post by papeda » Sat, May 16, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

cwhiz wrote: post #450

papeda wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to disagree on what the original statement is. When I talk to my peers, the original statement is some version of: "big tech is the most harmful monopoly in the USA today". Saying "what about monopolistic industry x?" is directly engaging with that statement. It's possible that I'm conflating people's decisions to prioritize talking about tech companies with their actual priorities for which industries requir…

You’re moving the goalposts. This article doesn’t say big tech is the most harmful monopoly in the USA. You made a top level comment so you weren’t responding to anyone, either. This is an article about the justice department potentially bringing antitrust charges against Google and you made a top level comment saying “what about this other industry?” This is whataboutism. As clear as the day is long.

I see. I'm interpreting the DoJ's choice as a claim that Google is the most harmful monopolist in the US, since they've chosen to go after Google (and not anybody else). That's why I wrote my original comment. However, that's not actually stated in the article.

I think my interpretation is reasonable, but I get why it's whataboutism in a discussion of the topic "is big tech monopolistic?".

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#453

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, May 16, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

papeda wrote: post #341

elliekelly wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying Google added search engine choice to Chrome in order to create the illusion of competition in a monopolized market. If Google didn't have monopoly power in the search engine market they never would have added search engine choice to Chrome in the first place for the same reason Starbucks stores don't sell bags of Dunkin' Donuts coffee beans. A rational enterprise in a competitive market doesn't benevolentl…

Hm. If I understand the cellophane paradox, it says that the "substitutes exist" does not imply "there is no monopoly". That seems different from your argument, which I understand to be "only a monopolist would make it easy for consumers to choose a competitor". But again, the conclusion that Google is a monopolist seems to be baked into this logic -- would you really say Google is not a monopolist if they did not of…

> which I understand to be "only a monopolist would make it easy for consumers to choose a competitor"

No, not "only".

The argument is that while non-monopolists have a motivation to add those choices, monopolists have a motivation too.

Therefore seeing the end result isn't very strong evidence for whether something is a monopoly or not.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#454

Post by drawkbox » Sat, May 16, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

ksec wrote: post #439

drawkbox wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-trust needs to come back in a big way to a Teddy Roosevelt / FDR level. Monopoly/oligopoly that causes too much concentration should be subject to regular anti-trust. The biggest needing breakups are: - ISPs / telecoms - Banks - Food supply ISPs / telecom should be first, the 2017 push to remove net neutrality even with clear violations [1], privacy protections and focus on ad networks [2], data caps, throttling…

I was expecting something on Food Supply, what is the current issues with it?

It is in there under the "With the pandemic, now the food supply has been exposed as too consolidated. Even hedge funds are saying it, when hedge funds are worried you should be worried as these are the wealth extractors." [1]

Too much consolidation and waste due to super efficiency that is inflexible like code that is too coupled and specialized for a certain cpu over being flexible.

Right now pork is being wasted as slaughterhouses and meat packing has been reduced dramatically in the US since the 90s, larger facilities, less of them. Too efficient that it created a security issue and potential national security attack vector. Everything is not as localized, so there are choke points in our food supply that become massive backlogs.

>In 1977, the four largest meat processing firms constituted just 25% of the market, claims Bond. Today, they control 85% of the slaughter market, as well as some 35% of cattle ranches and around 65% of the entire chicken industry, he said.

> Since 1990, the number of slaughter houses, excluding poultry, has declined by 46%, from 2,709 establishments to just 1,461 establishments.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hedge-fund-blames-us-meat-...

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#455

Post by eitland » Sat, May 16, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #219

onewhonknocks wrote: post #188

IMHO they're not a monopoly, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted." In this case, the supply of a good or service (social networking, webpage indexing and searching) are not controlled by Facebook and Google because they aren't finite resources. Anyone can index the web and…

The Scylla is scale, if you aren't big you can't do search at all, and only a behemoth like Google can do free-form AI assisted questions. The Charybdis is trust. You can't monetize search directly, or it becomes a bunch of transparent lies that nobody wants. You can't be a rapacious predator that has already tried to eat the internet several times (sorry, Microsoft). It mattered that early Google said "don't be evil…

> if you aren't big you can't do search at all,

duckduckgo is profitable and has been for some years already.

> and only a behemoth like Google can do free-form AI assisted questions.

Google is significantly worse than it used to be before they started applying AS (Artificial Stupidity) indiscriminately.

Maybe in the future I'll appreciate it but for for now it is really annoying.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#456

Post by sebow » Sat, May 16, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #91

pge wrote: post #20

This is interesting because it seems like the DOJ's definition of monopoly is changing, which I think is a good thing. Since the late 80s (roughly), antitrust litigation has only been brought on the basis of a monopoly's negative impact on consumer prices (i.e. does the existence of a monopoly cause the consumer to have to pay higher prices?). That ignores monopolies that impair the ability of smaller companies to en…

This has been a major gap between the American understanding of monopoly protection and the European one. In the European space, protection of smaller business' ability to compete is factored in. But the US space, in general, has not cared if smaller businesses can compete and tends to take a laissez-faire attitude towards business-on-business market pressures. It's the effect of the market on consumers that's paramo…

>In the European space, protection of smaller business' ability to compete is factored in.

While you can't say "X applies universally to the whole europe", i'm pretty sure this is mostly false. A european business has to endure a lot more bureaucracy and self-manage security issues than rely on the "European Union" for these "protections".

The US has a lot of more booming businesses precisely because the lack of regulations and less gov. involvement.This can be a double-edged sword, meaning the gov. can let a business go bankrupt(unless ofc. the gov. can gain something by keeping the company afloat).

Also, when a company in Europe gets to the status of "monopoly"/corporation, usually(specially in poorer countries) it quickly gets nationalized.When that happens, the profits don't grow as quickly(though the stability of the company gets linked to the stability of the country's economy).

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#457

Post by tsukurimashou » Sat, May 16, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

mrkramer wrote: post #54

pge wrote: post #20

This is interesting because it seems like the DOJ's definition of monopoly is changing, which I think is a good thing. Since the late 80s (roughly), antitrust litigation has only been brought on the basis of a monopoly's negative impact on consumer prices (i.e. does the existence of a monopoly cause the consumer to have to pay higher prices?). That ignores monopolies that impair the ability of smaller companies to en…

Google's dominant market position was achieved through market competition not through impairing the ability of smaller companies to enter markets. Even in Google Chrome you can pick DuckDuckGo and Ecosia as your default search engine. Most of Chrome users probably never heard of those two search engines. For example would YouTube be successful as it is today if it wasn't Google's resources and knowledge to skyrocket…

> Google's dominant market position was achieved through market competition not through impairing the ability of smaller companies to enter markets

Not sure about that considering how many startups they buy each year

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#458

Post by papeda » Sat, May 16, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #453

papeda wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. If I understand the cellophane paradox, it says that the "substitutes exist" does not imply "there is no monopoly". That seems different from your argument, which I understand to be "only a monopolist would make it easy for consumers to choose a competitor". But again, the conclusion that Google is a monopolist seems to be baked into this logic -- would you really say Google is not a monopolist if they did not of…

> which I understand to be "only a monopolist would make it easy for consumers to choose a competitor" No, not "only". The argument is that while non-monopolists have a motivation to add those choices, monopolists have a motivation too. Therefore seeing the end result isn't very strong evidence for whether something is a monopoly or not.

I agree with your statement. The comment I was responding to does not:

> If anything this is evidence of Google’s search engine monopoly and Google built the selection feature into Chrome it in furtherance of that monopoly power

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#459

Post by burkaman » Sat, May 16, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

Infinitesimus wrote: post #124

burkaman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS, Amazon Studios, Amazon the online marketplace, Amazon the producer of goods sold on that marketplace, Whole Foods, Ring, Twitch, whatever else they own

I don't think all of those will be viable businesses on their own without VC money will they?

AWS is Amazon's most profitable division.

Amazon Studios would be the same business model as any other independent TV/film production company.

Amazon marketplace operates on very slim margins to stay competitive, but it's hard to believe it couldn't be profitable on its own. Maybe it would have to settle for slightly less universal domination.

Many businesses make money by exclusively selling through Amazon, so there's no reason they couldn't spin off a profitable business that sells Amazon Basics and whatever other store brands they produce.

Whole Foods is obviously a viable business.

I doubt Ring was profitable but it was clearly capable of getting VC money on its own. If it can't be a viable business, why did they start it? And why did VCs invest in it?

Twitch was profitable before acquisition.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#460

Post by dahfizz » Sat, May 16, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #199

onewhonknocks wrote: post #188

IMHO they're not a monopoly, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted." In this case, the supply of a good or service (social networking, webpage indexing and searching) are not controlled by Facebook and Google because they aren't finite resources. Anyone can index the web and…

"Monopolization Defined" The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any mark…

> Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident.

It seems like this is exactly what GP was saying...