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

141–150 of 343 posts

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

#141

Post by dalbasal »

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…

FB is somewhat of an odd man out... I certainly think reversing acquisitions would be a positive, but...

With Bell, standard oil and past monopolies... the goal was to decentralise while keeping oil and telecom viable. We wanted what they made, and didn't want disruptions.

Do we want what FB makes? Is it scarce? I feel like we would have a sufficient supply of likes, shares, messages and posts regardless. There doesn't need to be a $trn company for those to be supplied.

Generally, I think the issues at stake have evolved. Many of the problems with today's monopolies are power related, rather than efficiency related. I think FB is enormously inefficient, but this is kind of besides the point.

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

#142

Post by billjings »

dantheman wrote: post #119
billjings wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What makes Amazon different in this regard? Is Amazon doing it differently?" Nothing, and they aren't. Except they're maybe the biggest. The intellectual foundation of this new movement isn't specifically anti big tech. It's anti all kinds of anticompetitive business practices, many of which have had huge negative effects outside of tech. Grocery stores are one of them, but one can point to any area of the economy a…

These aren't anti-competitive, they increase competition. The help the consumer get better prices.

Then you disagree with the folks advancing these policies! :) Their perspective is that Amazon, Kroger, Wal-Mart, and a whole host of other businesses (including things as seemingly boring as cheerleading supply companies) are engaging in anticompetitive practices that cause a variety of harms.

Depending on which case you look at, they allege different harms. In some cases they allege harm to suppliers or to employees, but in others they make the case for anti-consumer harm.

Hopefully folks won't continue to downvote me. Whether you agree with these folks or not (and I'm not trying to make their case for them here), that is what their position is. It is wise to understand them, even if we don't agree with them.

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

#143

Post by mullingitover »

mindslight wrote: post #94
Cerium wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trader Joe's is the closest to Amazon in this regard. They introduce new products as the name brand, the best sellers are cloned and then replaced with the store brands.

But Trader Joe's doesn't sell anything that is name brand? The whole store is store brand.

They absolutely sell other brands, my local TJs has a huge stack of White Claw in the beer aisle.

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

#144

Post by bogwog »

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.

I wonder why the DOD/FTC/whatever can't/won't impose specific restrictions on companies in order to correct anti-trust issues? That seems a lot less drastic and risky than a break-up.

For example, if Apple is forcing developers to use their payments SDK to collect 30%, why can't a government agency just force them to stop?

Maybe there was a long official investigation by antitrust regulators, and that kicked off a long bureaucratic process that ends in a mandate restricting Apple from doing a very specific thing, maybe with an appeal/review process, expiration date, etc.

No need to get a bill passed that changes the law for everyone. A smaller company could still do that same thing, but it doesn't matter because due to their size, they're not immune to competitive forces. If anything, they'll have a harder time pulling it off because developers can get a better deal with Apple thanks to the new restriction.

Idk how the law works and whether the relevant regulators are able to do something like this. So maybe this comment is stupid, but it makes sense in my layman head at least.

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

#145

Post by rootusrootus »

jsolson wrote: post #57
rootusrootus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if they are the actual customers of their suppliers, it doesn't seem like what Amazon does. I don't walk into Kroger and buy Doritos from Frito-Lay with Kroger just doing the fulfillment and payment processing, do I? I'm actually buying product that Kroger owns. At least this is how I understand it. I am 100% open to being schooled in how it actually plays out. I'm just a software guy, but I like to learn.

If you're curious, The Secret Life of Groceries is a good (and interesting) read. One tl; dr thing is that the supermarkets are a _supplier_ to both end customers and those with products to sell. They supply shelf space and customer reach, in the very literal sense that companies bid for things like endcap placement (the end of the aisle being better than being in the aisle, since everyone making an orbit through, sa…

Thanks! That is an interesting aspect. I had not considered that it could be a two-way relationship, rather than the store just buying what they want to sell and putting it on the shelf.

I guess it seems a little obvious in retrospect that there must be a bit of that going on, I've long noticed that some suppliers have a lot of responsibility in the store beyond delivering product. Like the beer guy pretty much runs the entire beer aisle. And it's one of the big names supplying all the beer, not just their own.

I've seen similar action in some stores by the soft drink vendors and even the bread vendor. Non-store employees on the floor putting stock directly on the shelf.

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

#146

Post by Paedor »

fhrow4484 wrote: post #4

> Jeff Bezos, this one’s for you. This provision aims at Amazon’s practice of using data it collects from third-party merchants to enhance its own private label offerings. If it passes, the practice would be blatantly illegal. Would it equally apply to physical stores like Safeway, Kroger, Costco's private labels like "Private Selection", "Simple Truth", "Kirkland", ... What makes Amazon different in this regard? Is…

There's a great episode by planet money on the difference between Amazon and physical stores, the transcript is here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/697060225.

They mention two key differences. The first is just that Amazon is arguably more dominant than any physical distributor, and has more power over offerings.

The second is that if you make a new product for a retailer, the retailer usually has to invest in you to some extent, by giving you physical space and buying your product for resale. So, there's some shared risk and for developing new products. Amazon, on the other hand, doesn't need to give you anything to see how a new product will play out, so it might have too much of a position of power.

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

#147

Post by wintermutestwin »

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…

Haven't we learned that the "break 'em up" fix for monopolies doesn't achieve the desired results?

Why not simply get our government to do their jobs and REGULATE away practices that are not in the public's interest?

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

#148

Post by bluefirebrand »

dalbasal wrote: post #141
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…

FB is somewhat of an odd man out... I certainly think reversing acquisitions would be a positive, but... With Bell, standard oil and past monopolies... the goal was to decentralise while keeping oil and telecom viable. We wanted what they made, and didn't want disruptions. Do we want what FB makes? Is it scarce? I feel like we would have a sufficient supply of likes, shares, messages and posts regardless. There doesn…

Facebook the website and Facebook the advertising giant are kinda different things though.

By which I mean that Facebook does not make $trn by supplying likes shares messages and posts.

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

#149

Post by ojbyrne »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #101
Growling_owl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

At least 1 company has beaten you to that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2

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

#150

Post by Hongwei »

Paedor wrote: post #146
fhrow4484 wrote: post #4

> Jeff Bezos, this one’s for you. This provision aims at Amazon’s practice of using data it collects from third-party merchants to enhance its own private label offerings. If it passes, the practice would be blatantly illegal. Would it equally apply to physical stores like Safeway, Kroger, Costco's private labels like "Private Selection", "Simple Truth", "Kirkland", ... What makes Amazon different in this regard? Is…

There's a great episode by planet money on the difference between Amazon and physical stores, the transcript is here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/697060225 . They mention two key differences. The first is just that Amazon is arguably more dominant than any physical distributor, and has more power over offerings. The second is that if you make a new product for a retailer, the retailer usually has to invest in you…

I buy the first, not the second. Retailers often charge consumer packaged goods companies (CPGs) for preferential placement in aisle and carry no risk on inventory. The bigger the retailer (eg. bestbuy, walmart), the more likely they can assume no risk on inventory with a full return policy to the CPG. Best Buy just rents out space on their store floor to individual brands.
Post reply on HN