I don't have a problem with this. But I wonder why there isn't similar willpower to pursue, say, telecoms, banks, Monsanto, Luxxotica, Disney, and the like. Why is it just big tech?
[deleted]
Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
461–470 of 502 posts
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#462[deleted]
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Law especially at the federal DOJ level is as much about which cases to pursue as it is about what cases have merit. Either no monopolists should be prosecuted or a select subset worthy of the opportunity cost should be. How big the subset is a question, and the proper subset could be zero, but it's not a contradiction to see selective enforcement of anti-trust. The opposite, where many big, massive cases are opened…
Sure, but the claim here wasn't (as I read it) that this is unusual, but that it's unjust. If prosecutors are selecting the highest ROI targets based on some calculation of which cases they can win and which cases have the biggest consumer or market impact (or are most egregious), that doesn't seem especially problematic. If they're selecting targets for prosecution based on who has political connections and who does…
Well, the burden of proof seems to be on the person making claims going after big tech vs other industries is politically motivated. I would prefer the DoJ step in to take actions against companies that are abusing their power to massively violate the world's privacy through surveillance systems which have unimaginable capabilities for shaping global human behavior. It's hard to think of a more worthy target of anti-trust law than the companies which are poised to control the minds and behavior of billions due to their market power.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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...
OP asserted:
Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."
The FTC guidances differs on several points, specifically.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see this as "good is the enemy of perfect". I see federal contracting as a worse force for waste and bad outcomes than tech companies, so I suggest that targeting that industry would better improve people's lives. Not every suggestion that we've misidentified a big problem is whataboutism. Especially when elected officials (in theory) look to their constituents to determine which problems to address/industrie…
But it literally is whataboutism. If a friend of yours expresses concern about big tech firms, and then you say, "But what about this other industry?" you have not engaged at all with the original statement and attempted to shift the conversation to something else entirely.
Whataboutism is a fallacy when applied to moral arguments, not resource allocation arguments (which is what I at least read the OP as making). Everyone has a finite amount of time and resources for political participation, the DoJ (and every other prosecutor's office) has finite personnel and resources to devote to cases, etc. Unlike moral debate, choosing to protest/investigate some specific cause/company is a genuine zero-sum game because there are far more choices than there are resources to pursue them. Choosing one means not choosing another, so it's completely reasonable to question whether any given choice is providing the best ROI. That's a genuine major part of a prosecutor's job description, and it applies to citizens too. It's quite possible to put in a ton of time and effort and achieve nothing because it was a bad approach.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#466A take: monopoly in tech is good. Because Google/Amazon/FB have so much money they can do things that push tech forward as a whole. Think about the revolutionary improvements Google has made towards data centers, AWS, and all the research/open source contributions these companies have done. Unlike other monopolies (telecom, defense contracting) etc. where the monopoly is used to stagnate innovation (see Comcast being…
> here the monopoly leads to more innovation More innovation in what? And as compared to what? The innovations you mention are all addressing issues that only huge tech giants like Google have anyway. And they are all funded by the ad-supported business model, which IMO is a negative that outweighs those positive contributions. Plus, the ad supported business model means users only get the benefit of any innovations…
> A company in Google's position is exactly the company that could figure out how to get a billion users to pay them directly for services those users want, instead of using their eyeballs as commodities, but Google has put zero effort towards that highly desirable innovation.
Fwiw Google has tried this more than once. It's just that the value that advertisers get is way higher than the value that consumers get.
There are specific search terms that can go for more than $50 ad bids. Individuals can't really pay for that much. Like how much would you be willing to pay for Google search each year?
> If this hypothesis were correct, we would have expected to see lawsuits against those other monopolies during, say, the Obama administration. But we didn't.
This only follows if you believe the Obama and Trump admins are equally corrupt.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it literally is whataboutism. If a friend of yours expresses concern about big tech firms, and then you say, "But what about this other industry?" you have not engaged at all with the original statement and attempted to shift the conversation to something else entirely.
Whataboutism is a fallacy when applied to moral arguments, not resource allocation arguments (which is what I at least read the OP as making). Everyone has a finite amount of time and resources for political participation, the DoJ (and every other prosecutor's office) has finite personnel and resources to devote to cases, etc. Unlike moral debate, choosing to protest/investigate some specific cause/company is a genui…
Thanks, this is a clearer expression of the argument I wanted to make.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I think of harmful monopolies, I think that the worst ones are where a company owns a patent to a drug and refuses to sell it for less than 100x cost. But people every day can choose to type in any website into their search bar... and they choose to type Google. I don't see any reason why Google should be punished for that--unless they've done something bad elsewhere. It seems like a lawsuit will objectively mak…
You really can’t compete against free. A large number of people use Google properties because they are free. Existence of a free product will pretty much decimate a large number of business models. Give it enough time and these companies will create gravity wells that start distorting society. Google’s network effects are so strong that as a consumer or a producer you cannot run away from them. Want to use your own e…
> Want to use firefox? Gmail and youtube really will move heaven and earth to make you use chrome.
What's that meant to mean? I use firefox, and I don't even see any suggestion anywhere on any Google properties to use Chrome, though there used to be something on the front page. Certainly never seen anything in gmail.
I agree that gmail is a disaster for people running their own email servers, though.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter how a monopoly came to be a monopoly?
Yea it matters. If monopoly was achieved through market competition then fine, if it was achieved through destroying other companies then it is illegal and unfair. But once dominant market position is achieved company still needs to behave properly and not stifle competition.
What would be valuable in the case of a monopoly that is achieved through market competition is to require the monopolist to help other compete as opposed to breaking up the monopolist. The former promotes competition to the benefit of the consumer and the latter promotes competition at the expense of the consumer.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really can’t compete against free. A large number of people use Google properties because they are free. Existence of a free product will pretty much decimate a large number of business models. Give it enough time and these companies will create gravity wells that start distorting society. Google’s network effects are so strong that as a consumer or a producer you cannot run away from them. Want to use your own e…
> Want to use firefox? Gmail and youtube really will move heaven and earth to make you use chrome. What's that meant to mean? I use firefox, and I don't even see any suggestion anywhere on any Google properties to use Chrome, though there used to be something on the front page. Certainly never seen anything in gmail. I agree that gmail is a disaster for people running their own email servers, though.
Google intentionally slows or cripples many of their products on Firefox - simply changing the user agent makes them load faster and have all their normal features. See: Gmail & Google Photos on Firefox desktop (painfully slow, fixed with user agent), Google Images on Firefox Android (functionally crippled, fixed with user agent).