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

United States vs. Google

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#121

Post by AnthonyMouse »

xapata wrote: post #96
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's actually the root of the disagreement though, because the behavior of large tech companies cause both types of harm. If Google makes life difficult for competing app stores by preventing them from installing app updates on non-rooted phones while reserving that privilege to itself, that obviously harms competing app stores, but it also harms the app developers who are the customers of the app sto…

> Google Play But as I understand it, that isn't the topic of the lawsuit.

It's the topic of the Epic lawsuit, which is the one where most of the discussions took place, because the new one is only a couple days old.

But it's the same general principle here. If Google uses Android to cement Chrome's as the only browser engine, consumers are harmed because they lose access to potential competing browsers that might e.g. respect privacy more. And the fact that iOS exists doesn't much help because they're even worse -- Chrome is the default on Android but at least you can install real Firefox, whereas on iOS they're all skins over Safari. So a third party has nowhere to take hold.

Re: United States vs. Google

#122

Post by VikingCoder »

pupdogg wrote: post #61
VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

Law’s official motto is also “In God We Trust”, can you define God?

I happen to think it should not be the motto of the United States. In part because I don't think the Government should be trying to define what God is or is not.

Re: United States vs. Google

#123

Post by belinder »

rland wrote: post #109

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions In what country does the author live? Americans are so used to concentrated…

So what can we do about it?

Re: United States vs. Google

#124

Post by wonder_er »

Judgmentality wrote: post #108
wonder_er wrote: post #102

At least Google's monopoly isn't based on coercion and threats of violence. I with the US Government didn't have a monopoly on coercion and threats of violence. It's hard for me to give a sh*t about the Department of Justice's take on _anything_ when they still prosecute drug possession. Repeat after me: - Google cannot legally kill people or put them in boxes. - The DoJ and it's subsidiaries kills people and puts th…

This is a red herring fallacy. The government can be more evil than Google and Google can still be evil. Does that mean we should not care that Google is evil? The government is the only tool we have to fight Google. And while there are lots of problems with our government, we still have the ability to enact change by voting. You can't really do that with Google, even as a shareholder. The founders have supervoting r…

> The government can be more evil than Google and Google can still be evil. Does that mean we should not care that Google is evil?

You're conflating two things.

1. The government is more evil than Google.

2. Google may still be evil.

therefore... use the more evil thing to fight the less evil thing?

I disagree with this assessment.

I'd say we should focus on mitigating the _most_ evil thing, using _less evil_ tools.

> The government is the only tool we have to fight Google.

The missing piece here is - we have plenty of tools to "fight google". Everyone could up and leave, stop using their service, and boom. no more revenue. Google is gone, irrelevant, de-monopolized.

The government is indeed the only _coercive_ tool available to fight Google, because the government can make credible threats of violence against the Google leadership.

There are plenty of other non-coercive tools we can use to "fight" google, and it's called "competition".

For example, notice that we're talking about Google right now, and not Microsoft. This is because Google "fought" Microsoft's monopoly by _making better tools_.

I cannot wait to see what company comes along and beats Google at their own game.

Re: United States vs. Google

#125

Post by dudul »

rland wrote: post #109

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions In what country does the author live? Americans are so used to concentrated…

In what country do you live? ISP monopolies and dysfunctional health care system are discussed constantly. Maybe it just means the people don't have the power they think they do to change things and influence policies.

Re: United States vs. Google

#126

Post by sudosysgen »

thayne wrote: post #117
rland wrote: post #109

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions In what country does the author live? Americans are so used to concentrated…

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

I'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?

Re: United States vs. Google

#127

Post by dsabanin »

VikingCoder wrote: post #51
dsabanin wrote: post #47

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time. Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening onli…

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

It's not about the number, it's about how much influence other society one company should have.

If we're not careful we may simply lose democracy to corporations. Some argue that it might already be too late.

Re: United States vs. Google

#128

Post by tboyd47 »

rland wrote: post #109

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions In what country does the author live? Americans are so used to concentrated…

I totally agree. It's as if the author got his view of Americans from reading Alexander de Tocqueville.

Re: United States vs. Google

#129

Post by pak9rabid »

sudosysgen wrote: post #126
thayne wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

I'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?

Sure, but when you basically have to be a millionaire to run for high-level political offices that could actually change things like this, you get a limited selection of people, who are likely going to fight to preserve the status-quo of continuing to make themselves and their friends rich.
Post reply on HN