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

Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

bigtechnology.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 343 posts

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#101

Post by joejerryronnie »

Growling_owl wrote: post #46
WalterBright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that Microsoft never did any lobbying before the anti-trust suit. Once you're big enough to be a target, you have to spend money on lobbying, and contribute to campaigns.

> Once you're big enough to be a target, you have to spend money on lobbying, and contribute to campaigns. Absolutely not. You do the opposite of that. You go at layer zero. At the population level and enter the culture wars arena with the goal of winning. Some of these companies are structured in a way that the founders are poised to retain control of their companies till they retire (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Berks…

You’ve also got to read the room. The mood in the US is not in favor of hard charging mavericks of industry. This approach today would likely backfire spectacularly.

Big Tech should be locating large employment centers in strategic locations around the country. And by strategic I don’t mean where the talent, resources, or customers are located but rather where influential Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors are located. Then wield your soft power with these folks, e.g. “You can break us up but it’s just going to cost your district/state massive job losses”.

Next, meet with other agitating politicians to find out their underlying motivations and help them to achieve those things - doesn’t even need to be real, just help make them look good for their next re-election campaign. So Bezos should work out a public deal with Bernie and AOC to raise Amazon’s minimum wage to $20 an hour. Bernie and AOC will look like progressive heroes but would be effectively defanged in continuing to attack Amazon (to a large degree).

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#102

Post by ethbr0 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #88
ethbr0 wrote: post #54

I've come around and landed more on the opinion that we're now enabling our jailors. Light tech regulation was exactly the correct approach in the 1990s (and arguably the 2000s). It enabled mind-boggling rapid and stunning innovation. ... However, the massive corporate fortunes built by the winners of those times are now primarily enabling rent seeking. Google and Facebook's other work is interesting in the same way…

We need to be careful about breakups to prevent re-agglomeration. Although AT&T was broken up, the Baby Bells eventually merged back together again while nobody was looking. The winner was Southwestern Bell, which later renamed itself to AT&T. The AT&T we know today is really just Southwestern Bell with a new name. Fortunately they have competitors but not very many.

> while nobody was looking

It was done while everyone was looking, and it was explicitly authorized because the market had changed.

Wireless had proliferated, and the value add segment of the vertical had moved (from circuit-switched lines and long distance) to the Internet, where (pre-Time Warner merger in laughably late 2016) ATT didn't compete.

There's also the two other surviving "small" clumps of Bells called Verizon (Bell Atlantic, NYNEX + GTE) & Lumen (US West + Qwest + CenturyLink).

If we want to gripe about the current state of the US ISP market, post-ATT re-mergers shouldn't be top of mind. Exclusive franchise agreements, lack of common and accessible conduit / poles, lack of community-funded competitors, and bundling are above it.

Even a hypothetical worst-current-case scenario where 3+ of the majors ATT, Verizon, CenturyLink, Comcast, & Spectrum were offered at every house, because they all had access to each other's last-mile at non-discriminatory rates would solve current issues.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#103

Post by ethbr0 »

handrous wrote: post #93
pmoriarty wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology field has much deeper problems that increased competition alone won't fix. One of the most pernicious effects of tech advances in recent decades has been the rise of surveillance state and surveillance capitalism, and the loss of privacy that comes with that. This enabling of spying on everyone is not going to be addressed by more competition, and might even enable it further if innovation in that spac…

> One of the most pernicious effects of tech advances in recent decades has been the rise of surveillance state and surveillance capitalism, and the loss of privacy that comes with that. Exactly this! Two out of five of FAANG derive effectively all their revenue from global-scale dragnet spying, and all five of them use that kind of data collection as a highly effective moat against competition. It should simply be o…

I'd say 3/5 (+Amazon). And arguably 5/5 if you include product mining within their ecosystems (+Apple +Netflix).

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#104

Post by Jaygles »

officialjunk wrote: post #62
Jaygles wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another difference between Amazon and physical stores is that Amazon has pagination. If a product ends up on the second or third page, it will likely not be seen by the vast majority of customers. With physical stores, your options are always all right in front of you.

there is an analogous experience at physical stores, though. the proximity of items to entryways, cashiers, etc matters for sales. also, which height shelf a product is put on also matters. some at eye level, for example, and others at children's eye level, make certain products more prominent. if you are trying to place a product at a store, how much it would cost you depends greatly on where in the store it is plac…

Sure, but I would argue that that is more of an analogy to the first page of products only. Things that are beyond the third or fourth page may as well be in the back of the store, and not on the shelves.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#105

Post by lovich »

fallingknife wrote: post #91
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #39

They pissed off the left by being sociopathic big businesses that treated people poorly. They pissed off the right by exerting perceived control over public discourse. They've pissed off government in general by swinging around their power when called out on these things. It wasn't a question of if the feds would screw them it was a question of when.

That's not really why they pissed off the left though. What other industry treats its workers better than tech? They pissed off the left by moving in on their turf. Big tech is a direct threat to universities, journalism, media, and entertainment industries. It's not a threat, and even a benefit to transportation, oil/gas/mining, and agriculture, which are more republican industries.

>What other industry treats its workers better than tech?

There's a bit of a disconnect between what a FAANG company considers an employee and what the colloquial definition of employees are at a company.

The large corporations have shed every worker they can that's unrelated to their core business, such as by contracting out security or cleaning. Then the large corporations say they treat their employees better and point at the ones remaining who get all the nice perks. The average person however, sees someone who goes to work every day at the same corporate campus and views them as employees who are not treated well

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#106

Post by fallingknife »

lovich wrote: post #105
fallingknife wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really why they pissed off the left though. What other industry treats its workers better than tech? They pissed off the left by moving in on their turf. Big tech is a direct threat to universities, journalism, media, and entertainment industries. It's not a threat, and even a benefit to transportation, oil/gas/mining, and agriculture, which are more republican industries.

>What other industry treats its workers better than tech? There's a bit of a disconnect between what a FAANG company considers an employee and what the colloquial definition of employees are at a company. The large corporations have shed every worker they can that's unrelated to their core business, such as by contracting out security or cleaning. Then the large corporations say they treat their employees better and…

Yes, but that happens in every industry, and this is about why the left hates tech in particular.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#107

Post by rektide »

ethbr0 wrote: post #102
dreamcompiler wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to be careful about breakups to prevent re-agglomeration. Although AT&T was broken up, the Baby Bells eventually merged back together again while nobody was looking. The winner was Southwestern Bell, which later renamed itself to AT&T. The AT&T we know today is really just Southwestern Bell with a new name. Fortunately they have competitors but not very many.

> while nobody was looking It was done while everyone was looking, and it was explicitly authorized because the market had changed. Wireless had proliferated, and the value add segment of the vertical had moved (from circuit-switched lines and long distance) to the Internet, where (pre-Time Warner merger in laughably late 2016) ATT didn't compete. There's also the two other surviving "small" clumps of Bells called Ve…

Common carrier laws established in the 1996 Telecommunications Act were doing a good job insuring that ISPs were competitive, by requiring regulated, bulk wholesale access to local loop elements to competitive (non-incumbent) carriers. Most cities in the US had a wide variety of DSL options, which was possible because of this common carrier system.

Things were kind of going ok with that!

That all got royally hosed when pro-big-business Supreme Court activism sided with Verizon's stance that they Verizon should have monopoly rights to fiber, in Verizon vs FCC (2002). Now suddenly telecomms could go back to their nasty old ways, which they have.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#109

Post by zer00eyz »

rdtwo wrote: post #82
zer00eyz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sale of contaminated beef has happened many many times in my lifetime, leading to massive recalls, even lettuce has seen contamination and outbreaks. The liability has not been on the store, rather the supplier/manufacturer of those products. The local ford dealer wast at fault for your pinto exploding of the tires blowing off your SUV. You didn't get to sue the store that sold you cigarets or round up that gave…

Yeah but if the manufacturer went kaput or the store was negligent in sourcing beef you could sue. Both of these are a problem with amazon. If target sold Chinese cribs that killed kids for example you can bet folks would sue target and not the manufacturer

The idea of negligent sourcing is interesting... you would have to prove that they knowingly bought and sold a bad product.

The idea of "blame the retailer" is, to a degree, protectionist. Your solving the problem of "can't sue the chinese manufacturer" by blaming the retailer. The reality of the world we live in has changed so drastically since those laws were made that we should probably revisit those.

Blaming retailers only serves to have fewer, larger retailers, not choice (and competition). This entire line of thinking presents a massive potential to lead to less choice, in retailers and products, leading to LESS competition.

Post reply on HN