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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 452 posts

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

#401

Post by mandeepj »

capableweb wrote: post #5

> 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…

> How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices?

Ha! Did you even check? Chrome is available from a long time

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

#402

Post by mongol »

capableweb wrote: post #5

> 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…

Strangely enough, I get lot of Google Earth top hits on DDG. Seems Google excels at SEO.

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

#403

Post by foobar33333 »

kortilla wrote: post #288
capableweb wrote: post #5

> 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.

What reason is this? As far as I'm concerned you should be allowed to install whatever you want on game consoles as well.

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

#404

Post by foobar33333 »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #359
capableweb wrote: post #5

> 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…

How can grocery stores be allowed to own food brands when they're also marketplaces! How can Aldi be allowed to sell competing products in their own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace?

Is it a good thing that supermarkets have their own brands, typically cloning other packaging/branding and being at a price advantage due to not paying supermarket fees? Is this something we should try to protect?

All of these "What about x" points just make me think that we need to go further and stop those as well rather than using them as a justification to not bother.

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

#405

Post by dredmorbius »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #399
dredmorbius wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mens rea.

Strict liability, duty of care and ignorantia juris non excusat.

Right.

Mens rea ("guilty mind") itself is not a uniformly applied principle. But it's the name of the concept you were attempting to address above.

See also actus reus ("guilty act").

And note that in tort liability (as opposed to criminal liability) other standards may apply. "Strict liabilty" is more typically applied in civil law, though there are (I learned responding here) some applications in criminal law as well. In the latter case it seems to be similar to my understanding of prima facie violation. That is, the fact of a thing is a violation of law, regardless of intent.

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

#406

Post by timoth3y »

kortilla wrote: post #288
capableweb wrote: post #5

> 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. >…

> Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs have existed.

This one is substantively different. Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. They claim that both buyers and sellers are their customers, unlike an actual store where only the buyers are the customers.

So when Amazon decides to set up its own logistics company, no problem. When they use private market data to place their own products into their market, that's a different matter.

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

#407

Post by wahern »

timoth3y wrote: post #406
kortilla wrote: post #288

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. >…

> Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs have existed. This one is substantively different. Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. They claim that both buyers and sellers are their customers, unlike an actual sto…

> Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented.

Amazon claims this, but at least in California they still face product liability: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal...

While on its face the outcome doesn't seem surprising to me, this may nonetheless turn out to be a very important national precedent as California was, IIRC, the first jurisdiction to both clearly establish strict product liability for manufacturers and also extend that liability to intermediate sellers in the distribution chain.

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

#409

Post by timoth3y »

wahern wrote: post #407
timoth3y wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs have existed. This one is substantively different. Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. They claim that both buyers and sellers are their customers, unlike an actual sto…

> Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. Amazon claims this, but at least in California they still face product liability: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal... While on its face the outcome doesn't seem surprising to me, this may nonetheless turn out to be a very i…

I agree. I don't think Amazon can continue this kind of legal equivocation much longer. The claim to be "a neutral market" when questions of consumer protections arise and "just one web store among many" when questions of improper use of their market ownership arise.

The California decision makes a lot of sense.

Looking at their business model with their ownership of the customer relationships, control of the payment methods, and the co-mingling of inventory, it's hard to claim that Amazon is just matching buyers and sellers.

I'm not really in the "break-up big tech" camp. We already have the laws needed to make companies play fair, we just need to enforce them.

That said, the whole Amazon Basics model is kind of questionable. I could see that being split off and forced to operate without access to private market data or preferential placement in the marketplace.

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

#410

Post by jkestner »

Nasrudith wrote: post #365
0xB31B1B wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The standard for decades”... the article is about a new laws being proposed because the current laws don’t properly account for the harms monopoly actors cause.

Isn't that itself very suspicious that they are going all Calvinball and changing the rules which long stood out of the blue? Now they say it is a monopoly is a problem after Walmart managed to become the biggest employer in several states and literally becoming the only option in many areas? Now they cite vague unspecified harms while long ignoring concrete ones and claim the ones with no ability to exclude from the…

Out of the blue? We’ve been talking about Amazon’s market power for a long time—longer in tech years. If we expect tech companies to move fast, I’d like regulation to be less than a decade behind.
Post reply on HN