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

House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

cicilline.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 226 posts

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#71

Post by TeeMassive »

gfodor wrote: post #2

I fundamentally distrust these people (on both sides) which will make it hard to not presume there are perverse incentives in these bills, but I’m open to it. My sense is that antitrust is as wrong a model for correcting this as the prior regime was that led to the creation of antitrust laws.

I have the same feeling. I do not trust the "except for organizations operating thematic parks" from Florida republicans nor do I trust the Democrats who have collaborated both at party and official level with the very people they claim to fight against.

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#72

Post by zepto »

shakezula wrote: post #15
foolfoolz wrote: post #7

the problem with “breaking up big tech” is it only breaks up american companies. it has a long run impact of letting foreign companies take over american market share

Historically, breaking up monopolies has been very good for the end consumer. Bell Labs and Standard Oil both ended up being good things. Instead of breaking them up though, we should simply be more stringent with anti trust hearings and merger approvals. There have been a few mergers recently that absolutely shouldn’t have been approved.

> Bell Labs and Standard Oil both ended up being good things.

These are nothing like the current tech companies. Their monopolies were based on commodities. Oil hasn’t changed since standard oil was broken up. AT&T’s monopoly was based on access to real estate to build a network.

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#73

Post by aerosmile »

simias wrote: post #13
foolfoolz wrote: post #7

the problem with “breaking up big tech” is it only breaks up american companies. it has a long run impact of letting foreign companies take over american market share

Do you have a particular example in mind or is it a theoretical concern? I can definitely see how it could benefit foreign competitors, but at the same time the American tech giants are so largely ahead of the competition that it's hard for me to imagine a foreign competitor managing to overtake them. It might level the playing field a little bit, but it's not necessarily a bad thing, even from a US-centric point of…

You should take a look at Tik Tok. Companies with large marketing budgets and focused on digital channels spend the majority of it on Facebook and Google. Traditionally, the rest went to Pinterest and Snapchat, but Tik Tok has 1) built a huge audience and 2) built a good enough ad platform (which only continues to improve) that they went from nowhere to choice #3 in a shockingly short amount of time. Sound familiar? Yes, that's exactly how to Facebook surprised Google as well, only much slower.

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#74

Post by bilbo0s »

gfodor wrote: post #2

I fundamentally distrust these people (on both sides) which will make it hard to not presume there are perverse incentives in these bills, but I’m open to it. My sense is that antitrust is as wrong a model for correcting this as the prior regime was that led to the creation of antitrust laws.

I fundamentally distrust these people (on both sides)

I know it sounds cliché, but that's the sign of a good citizen. You should distrust. Particularly since so much money is at stake. Anyone who doesn't distrust, is either being naive, or more likely, collecting on the graft.

I also share your concern that they want to have some convoluted anti-trust regime, rather than a simple, straightforward law that says no sharing of any user data for any commercial purpose at all, ever. With draconian penalties for any infraction. That would stop all this in its tracks, so you have to wonder why they let the privacy stuff go relatively unmolested?

The only answer I can come up with is that they fully intend to keep violating privacy. Maybe with different companies this time? Or different people collecting the money? But in the end, we the people are still getting shafted.

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#76

Post by LatteLazy »

EastSmith wrote: post #59

One of the bills (The "Ending Platform Monopolies Act") specifically targets companies with $600 billion market cap (AAFG), and misses Walmart by around $200 billion (it currently has market cap of less than $400 billion). It will be really funny if Walmart stock rises due to Amazon being split, and hits the $600 billion.

They'd be given a waver, they've paid their bribes unlike FAANG etc.

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#77

Post by pope_meat »

TeeMassive wrote: post #71
gfodor wrote: post #2

I fundamentally distrust these people (on both sides) which will make it hard to not presume there are perverse incentives in these bills, but I’m open to it. My sense is that antitrust is as wrong a model for correcting this as the prior regime was that led to the creation of antitrust laws.

I have the same feeling. I do not trust the "except for organizations operating thematic parks" from Florida republicans nor do I trust the Democrats who have collaborated both at party and official level with the very people they claim to fight against.

Good cop bad cop routine.

You can insert team blue or red in to either role depending on your political bias.

Either way though, you're under arrest xD

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#78

Post by stale2002 »

jayd16 wrote: post #18
zephyr1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you meant banning speech of your political enemies is unhinged from reality until I realised you meant the opposite

It is though. Imagine if every online forum was forced to promote government propaganda. That's not free speech. So to some degree, forum discretion is speech.

Just imagine if every telephone companies was prevented from discriminating on the basis of the speech....

Oh wait, that is literally how common carrier laws work. They are basically, forced to sell to everyone, and have to allow anyone to make speech over their network.

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#79

Post by syshum »

gfodor wrote: post #2

I fundamentally distrust these people (on both sides) which will make it hard to not presume there are perverse incentives in these bills, but I’m open to it. My sense is that antitrust is as wrong a model for correcting this as the prior regime was that led to the creation of antitrust laws.

Anti-Trust is not the best path

Better action would be reforms in contract law to limit binding Arbitration, make ToS unenforceable if they do not have at least SOME provisions in favor of the users (i.e stop allowing unconscionable contracts as Terms of Service), and stronger enforcement of Truth in Advertisement

For ToS, one thing that should absolutely be require for a ToS to be enforceable is a mandate that Vendors are required to provide exact justification for them terminating the agreement (i.e banning you). They should have to clearly define what EXACT terms you violate, and WHEN exactly you violated them. There should should be a mandated review process

For Truth in Advertisement, many of these companies and services use Bait and Switch tactics all the time, advertising their platforms as "Free Speech" or "welcome to all person" only to then clearly and objectively favor one political convention

One final thing I would prefer to see over Anti-Trust is some kine of provision that kicks in if the platform accepts "official Government Messaging" i.e if Twitter wants to allow an official government account on their platform then their should be additional requirements as that now does become an equality under the law concern if people are blocked for official communications.

If they do not want to have those additional strings on their platform then they can simply refuse in the Terms to allow for any Official Government Communication

Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”

#80

Post by tmotwu »

aerosmile wrote: post #73
simias wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a particular example in mind or is it a theoretical concern? I can definitely see how it could benefit foreign competitors, but at the same time the American tech giants are so largely ahead of the competition that it's hard for me to imagine a foreign competitor managing to overtake them. It might level the playing field a little bit, but it's not necessarily a bad thing, even from a US-centric point of…

You should take a look at Tik Tok. Companies with large marketing budgets and focused on digital channels spend the majority of it on Facebook and Google. Traditionally, the rest went to Pinterest and Snapchat, but Tik Tok has 1) built a huge audience and 2) built a good enough ad platform (which only continues to improve) that they went from nowhere to choice #3 in a shockingly short amount of time. Sound familiar?…

If we were to break up Facebook or Google, it would be of the granularity of YouTube or Instagram, which is actually what TikTok competes with. I cannot see how YouTube or Instagram could suffer or lose market share.
Post reply on HN