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

271–280 of 343 posts

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

#271

Post by mr_toad »

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…

> IMHO, everyone will be better off if Facebook, Google, and Amazon are shattered into small enough independent pieces that (1) "get bought" is no longer the startup win condition & (2) they have peer level competitors in all markets in which they participate. Apple and Microsoft? Mandate open app stores and devices, if an owning user so chooses.

I doubt all this bluster in Congress is anything more than rhetoric and posturing. There might be some settlements and watered down regulations, but that’ll be it. This is DoJ vs MS all over again.

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

#272

Post by Robotbeat »

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…

Some weird thing about Facebook is it now is basically the default web page for a LOT of small businesses. If you nuked Facebook, you'd nuke the webpages of millions of small businesses.

...not that you'd miss much, as they're usually spartan, but it's worth mentioning.

It's kind of annoying, because an actual webpage is much better IMO, but it is what it is.

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

#273

Post by cookiengineer »

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…

I think that the startup culture and everyone wanting to be a tech billionaire kind of changed the amount of midlevel companies. Most of them get acquired by the big ones at one point - or aren't able to compete with them technologically. Everything gets absorbed into blobs of enterprises that do not give a single damn about the individual customer.

The ironic thing here is that this goal, being absorbed by corporates, is what startup exits are about.

And honestly, I don't understand it. I want to build something that matters. Morally and ethically, not financially.

I want to build a legacy, not some zuck or bezos weekend shopping item.

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

#274

Post by willis936 »

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…

>Google and Facebook's other work is interesting in the same way that Bell Labs was interesting -- great for a few, but funded by taxing everyone

I feel like this sentiment doesn't go far enough. "Oh we would break up the monopoly if not for the innovation". Bell Labs innovated far more than FAANGs. It actually produced R&D that benefitted everyone. Big tech is far past the point of Bell Labs.

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

#275

Post by Animats »

None of the proposed bills are that severe. Most of the behaviors in Bill 1 are already illegal under current law. The FTC has been out to lunch on enforcement for years.

Bill 2 is broader, but not well defined.

Bill 3 is about data portability, a feature nobody actually uses even when available, as it is in Europe.

Bill 4 is about getting the FTC and DOJ enough money to do their jobs. These jobs are hard because Congress hasn't enacted a "bright line" standard that can be easily enforced. Amy Klobuchar, in her book, "Antitrust", suggests defining 30% market share as the point beyond which antitrust enforcement should start. None of these bills go that far.

Bill 5 is about stopping mergers which increase tying. But they're not about really stopping tying.

None of these do any of the following:

- Force Google to pick one business and split off all the others. They could keep search with ads, but would have to sell off third party ads, YouTube, and the data center business.

- Force Amazon to take on all the responsibilities of a seller for all merchandise on their platform.

- Force Facebook to sell off Instagram.

Also, none of these bills address AT&T or Comcast, which have real monopolies, not just market dominance.

This set of bills is thus mostly PR, not real change.

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

#277

Post by BobbyJo »

cookiengineer wrote: post #273
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…

I think that the startup culture and everyone wanting to be a tech billionaire kind of changed the amount of midlevel companies. Most of them get acquired by the big ones at one point - or aren't able to compete with them technologically. Everything gets absorbed into blobs of enterprises that do not give a single damn about the individual customer. The ironic thing here is that this goal, being absorbed by corporate…

For a lot of people, the reward is money. Not legacy. Not vision. Money. Uber was built for money. Facebook was built for money.

The reason buy-outs are more common is because the tech giants have gotten large enough to offer so god damn much money that very few people have enough non-monetary drive to continue the risk. Incentives affect actions in a dose dependent manner.

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

#278

Post by fb13 »

cookiengineer wrote: post #273
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…

I think that the startup culture and everyone wanting to be a tech billionaire kind of changed the amount of midlevel companies. Most of them get acquired by the big ones at one point - or aren't able to compete with them technologically. Everything gets absorbed into blobs of enterprises that do not give a single damn about the individual customer. The ironic thing here is that this goal, being absorbed by corporate…

> I want to build a legacy, not some zuck or besos weekend shopping item.

Yeah, keep that view and you'll succeed. Beware of: children, relationships that expect things from you, anyone that isn't within your reality distortion field.

I'm with you. I guess your in your twenties. Me, early thirties. It does get harder to say no to everything everyone around you is doing successfully, for moral reasons.

Zuck/bezos and your kid stops getting bullied at public school...

Also: money buys legacy. Bezos and zuck can scrub the web of their wrongdoings(not that there are any) with 0.00000001% of they're stash.

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

#279

Post by stephenhuey »

jsjohnst wrote: post #270
crazygringo wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I wasn't thinking of more "upscale" stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, good point. But in my part of Brooklyn everything's extremely local -- FoodTown, Western Beef, Associated, etc. And in Manhattan I indeed always shopped at Gristedes, Westside, Fairway (which looking up their ownership, is at most regional if not local -- and even Shoprite is regional, not one of GP's 3 national chains). But the main po…

> But the main point stands -- across all 5 boroughs, the vast majority of grocery stores are local chains. I’m not going to do like others and say your main point is irrelevant because NYC is unlike the rest of America (although arguably it is an outlier in almost every way), but the fact remains your main point is incorrect, the ‘vast majority’ of grocery stores in NYC are not local chains. I’m not invested in this…

Those 5 boroughs are pretty unusual compared to a majority of the USA. There are about 5,000 towns in the USA with more than 5,000 people and Wal-Mart has about 5,000 stores with $340 billion in grocery sales. Kroger and Costco both have over $100 billion in annual revenue with over 3,000 stores between them. Wal-Mart has over 40% of grocery stores in the country and these 3 stores together have over 70%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/197621/annual-grocery-st...

https://www.foodindustry.com/articles/a-list-of-the-top-ten-...

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

#280

Post by heavyset_go »

andreilys wrote: post #205
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…

IMHO, everyone will be better off if Facebook, Google, and Amazon are shattered into small enough independent pieces that (1) "get bought" is no longer the startup win condition & (2) they have peer level competitors in all markets in which they participate. I’m sure Chinese Tech co’s would absolutely love to have their Western competition knee-capped by their own governments. Will make it a lot easier for them to do…

China just fined Alibaba $3 billion for breaking anti-monopoly laws[1]. China also issued new anti-monopoly rules targeting its tech companies[2] in February.

Besides, everyone in the US benefits from increased competition between our domestic companies.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986112628/china-fines-alibaba...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet-anti-monop...

Post reply on HN