Live data from Hacker News

U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

reuters.com

311–320 of 452 posts

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has a better record on this than every other company I can think of. Rent seeking on things you find immoral? > Perhaps Epic didn't want to abide by these rules and used the fees as a cover? Is this something Apple has alleged? Because otherwise it looks like you're speculating wildly to appeal to emotion. "It's ok because maybe they're bad people."

That's not even an argument. It seems you're commenting in bad faith trying to trap me in some linguistical mistake. I did say perhaps which, last I checked, is a sign of a rhetorical thought. Apple is not perfect, I don't like Apple, but epic is selling crack to kids in my community. at least apple keeps intermediaries between them and their child slaves. I'm not taking sides here. All these huge companies are deplo…

Apple had no issue with Epic selling crack to your kids... as long as they got their 30% cut: there are no universally good actors here, and deciding your opinions on right and wrong based not on what should have happened but on your general opinions about the parties isn't how any of this should ever work.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your interests, that could be anything from: Fortnite, Tasker[0], NewPipe, Ublock Origin[1], Syncthing, xCloud and GeForce Now (until pretty recently[2]), RetroArch, the Dolphin emulator (as of iOS 14.4), and the most recent addition, NSFW Discord servers. > android is just handicapped because I can't run a different OS, or screw around in the OS and change things to my whims You totally can. I've been r…

I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform through alternative means. However, epic seems to be dominating the discussion and they are a bad actor acting in bad faith who peddle digital crack to children fleecing their parents. If we can disambiguate between useful apps, or apps that aren't designed to v…

If it makes you feel any better, Epic also sued Google; that lawsuit just doesn't get much press, as the narrative surrounding Apple's store is so much easier to attack due to how almost all Android devices technically support sideloading (though as a second-class feature which is actively crippled and discouraged by Google in ways that are maybe anticompetitive).

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#313

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch."

Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone.

Furstly, which law or court case actually establishes that those business practices are right and proper?

Secondly, which law or court case establishes that smartphones can be equated with game consoles? There is a huge body of law that governs mobile connectivity, spectrum, emergency services, etc. that has no bearing on a gaming device.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#314

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

> You’re going to have a really hard time defining what’s “fair” for a black box algorithm to do.

To which the two biggest counter-arguments are:

1. “So don’t allow black box algorithms”

2. “This is why the search engine company should be separate from the company which owns all the other products”

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#315

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

> > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different?

> The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch.

The iPhone is a general purpose computer, not a gaming toy. You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, spreadsheets, GPS navigation, photos, video - your entire life, all one one device.

For half of Americans, this is the only computer they own.

For half of Americans, Apple controls what software you can use, and it extorts a 30% cut.

That's mafia behavior.

Gamers can choose between Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, PC, Steam, Epic, and dozens of other platforms. There's lots of choice, and this is just one industry with a very narrow impact on consumers' lives.

Mobile computer (aka smartphone) users get to choose between Apple and Android for the entirety of everything they do, and both of these companies try to butt into everything. They even want to control banking and payments.

The App Stores aren't given to us benevolently out of the good will of a loving Apple and Google. They're means of exerting control and extracting profit in a monopolistic fashion. They both need to die.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. Furstly, which law or court case actually establishes that those business practices are right and proper? Secondly, which law or court case establishes that smartphones can be equated with game consoles? There is a huge body of law that governs mobile connectivity, spectrum, emergenc…

I believe the principal is that everything which is not banned is legal. This probably has a funky Latin translation, but I don’t know as I’m not a lawyer.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#317

Given the volume and profitably of tech trading by members of Congress (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26821601 ) I have ZERO confidence that any useful legislation will come of it. It will just be a bunch of earnest and disingenuous theatre by the very people profiting from a bunch of companies who make Microsoft circa 1995 look like a kitten. For my part, I think the fundamental business model of profitin…

wow, you're not kidding. what are the chances they are going to bite their main investments and key donor class? "About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-electi... https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-elec... https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/30/21540616/silicon-valle...

Obama's campaign manager said that Facebook flat out told them "we're on the same side" when they allowed them to abuse the same API Cambridge Analytica did.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

> > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? > The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch. The iPhone is a general purpose computer, not a gaming toy. You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, spreadsheets, GPS navigation, photos, video - your entire life, a…

> You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, spreadsheets, GPS navigation

> For half of Americans, Apple controls what software you can use, and it extorts a 30% cut.

30% (or even 15%) of $0 is $0.

Apple gets nothing from me for my finance apps, my email client, my chat apps, my spreadsheet apps, or my GPS apps, because they are free.

I can’t comment about dating apps as I’m not using any. Complaining that Apple charges for gaming, however, is weird given you choose to reject them as gaming devices.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#319
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard for antitrust enforcement for decades has been when the action of a company harms consumers. How does Amazon harm consumers? I mean precisely, how? Amazon is one of the most highly rated companies in the US by its customers. Its NPS score is 69 and 70 is considered "world class". I can get almost anything online shipped to my house the SAME DAY. If Amazon sends you the wrong item they'll let you keep the…

One example: Amazon doesn’t seem to care about fraudulent sellers and fake paid-for reviews on its platform.

Amazon cares substantially about stopping these things.

As is the case when you are fighting against other humans, who are crafty, financially-motivated, and are willing to break the law, and may be operating from different jurisdictions where attempting to get the DA to prosecute them or filing a lawsuit against them is ineffective, it's a very difficult battle to fight.

As an example I'd be surprised if Amazon could get China to prosecute a business operating from their country that's selling counterfeits on Amazon. Additionally, it's hard for Amazon to know if a product sold in its marketplace is counterfeit: there's no global API or method to look up if a product is authentic. The best you can do is rely on the trust of the seller. If you want to mitigate your risk, buy products that are only sold by Amazon itself, or name-brand 3rd party sellers who have high reputation (like Belkin for electronics; Apple even lists Belkin products that integrate with theirs on Apple's online store: https://www.apple.com/shop/accessories/all/power-cables?fh=4... ).

People occasionally experience counterfeits, but once reported the seller is typically caught and banned. (But if they're a corporation in another country, and willing to break the law and ToS, they'll reincorporate under another name and try to do it again. Stopping this is difficult.)

Reviews are also a difficult problem to tackle. Amazon decided long ago to allow people to leave reviews without purchases, though reviews from people who purchased the item get an extra "verified purchase" badge. But that doesn't stop the abusers: they "buy" the item under various accounts they've created themselves, give the product a good review, and then return it to their own inventory. Small sellers might get a bunch of friends & family to do this, which would be hard to detect as ToS-violating conspiracy; larger sellers will use sophisticated schemes to create many accounts and identities to do the same thing (or simply pay a network of actual people to do it, such as by asking on Craigslist and similar places), to boost reviews of their own products, or if they're willing to burn cash, buy and negatively-review products of competitors. When done from many names/addresses/credit cards/IP addresses, it requires sophisticated intelligence analysis to detect and stop.

Please consider the attackers that Amazon is actually up against when trying to stop these abusive behaviors before concluding that they don't care. They have multiple hundreds of people working on the problems. They are simply hard problems to solve, because Amazon is fighting against other smart, sophisticated humans who gain financially from their abuse.

Amazon could shut down its marketplace, which accounts for 50% or more of all sales on the store, and only sell products it acquires directly from manufacturers, but that would destroy many businesses who have built themselves up using Amazon as a primary venue to sell their product. Furthermore, it would disallow people who have legitimately acquired the product another way from reselling it--for example, say I buy a pallet of some authentic product from a retail store that's going out of business; shouldn't I be able to resell those products? The law says that I can. If Amazon has a marketplace, shouldn't I be able to resell there? These could be Nike shoes or any name-brand products.

(Sophisticated manufacturers who want to protect their supply chains from 3P reselling will repurchase inventory from retailers who are going out of business; or alternatively provide it to retailers on consignment --meaning Nike owns all the shoes being sold in a retailer's store up until the point where they're sold to a consumer; so upon going out of business the retailer is expected to return the inventory.)

Now you run into tricky situations. I buy a pair of Nike shoes brand new from a retail store and never use them. I decide I don't like their look after all. Should I be able to sell my shoes on Amazon as new at a lower price than Nike does? Yes, you should and you can (though you're unlikely to be selected as the default offer as a new untrusted seller with a single product; unless Nike is one of the companies with brand protection for what may be offered as "new"; though I believe you could still sell as "like new"--I am not an expert on this space).

Some brands were counterfeited so frequently that Amazon has started to offer the ability to limit who can sell trademark-protected items that are only sold by their manufacturers with its Brand Registry: https://brandservices.amazon.com/

I believe the sellers who are accused of fraud or counterfeiting will be asked by Amazon to provide proof of authenticity, such as purchase orders from the manufacturer or other proof of authentic origin, but allowing people to open accounts and sell means they start with a presumption of trust -- creating the possibility that some people will have bad experiences with counterfeiters until they're caught and shut down.

Imagine you're the Amazon engineer responsible for figuring out how to stop people willing to break the law and all of your policies to make profit; then put yourself in an attacker's shoes and imagine all the things you could do to circumvent the best ideas you can come up with for stopping fraudulent reviews and counterfeits. (Assume for the sake of argument that your company is committed to allowing third-parties to sell on the store.)

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. Furstly, which law or court case actually establishes that those business practices are right and proper? Secondly, which law or court case establishes that smartphones can be equated with game consoles? There is a huge body of law that governs mobile connectivity, spectrum, emergenc…

>>"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch."

> Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone.

Letting anyone put any software they wanted on an Xbox/Playstation/Switch would diminish the platform's value by eroding security and trust.

For instance, compare online cheating ecosystems between those three platforms and the PC (where you can run any software you want). The PC is a much, much worse platform in terms of cheaters, scammers and account hijacks.

I have no problem with people running whatever they want on the hardware they purchase, but extending that to "I should also be allowed to be trusted when I do this" does not logically follow. In other words, feel free to reflash your Xbox, but don't expect to be able to play games or connect to your Xbox Live account from that hardware after your jailbreak.

Post reply on HN