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

91–100 of 226 posts

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

#91

Post by shkkmo »

azinman2 wrote: post #22
mavelikara wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where not only do their tech companies have massive integration across so many products Why can't tech products have integration across each other, without tech giants buying up every small startup that comes across their way?

Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple. I don’t see how that has anything to do with buying small startups. However since you mentioned that, preventing M&A will not only prevent our bigger tech companies from being globally competitive by restricting their access to talent, it’ll shut off one of the main exit routes that’s ma…

> Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple.

This is clearly false. All sorts of industry defined standards work quite well. When companies don't create interoperability it isn't because it is too hard...

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

#92

Post by aerosmile »

tmotwu wrote: post #80
aerosmile wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The impact TikTok has had on the social media landscape is undeniable. This year, it is projected to reach 2.1 billion users, and its success hasn’t gone unnoticed by other key players, most notably Instagram. [1]

> in addition to gaining more users than Instagram, TikTok is also earning the attention of top power users. [2]

[1] https://digitalagencynetwork.com/tiktok-vs-instagram-who-is-...

[2] http://instagram-tiktok.com/tiktok-vs-instagram-which-one-wi...

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

#93

Post by throwkeep »

verall wrote: post #48
throwkeep wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a liberal and it's clear that big tech is suppressing dissenting voices. It's not targeted at conservatives specifically, but it captures them in larger number because tech and corporate media is mostly liberal and progressive. As such, conservative is by default a dissenting voice. Edit: See the lab leak hypothesis where big tech was suppressing and even banning people last year for questioning the approved narr…

> Managing director of Thiel Capital > posted a paper describing Geometric Unity online and went on Joe Rogan’s immensely popular podcast to discuss it What makes someone an old school progressive, in your opinion? I'm having trouble finding anything progressive about this person. His crackpot "theory of everything" has apparently been around since about 2013.

> What makes someone an old school progressive, in your opinion?

Those who were known as progressives prior to about 5 years ago. Eric and his brother Bret were self described progressives for decades.

> I'm having trouble finding anything progressive about this person.

Listen to his podcast The Portal to see. That he works with Thiel simply means that he is able to work with people who have different opinions. Guilt by association is lazy, as is dismissing a theory as crackpot, especially from a serious intellectual with the credentials (eg Harvard) to back it up.

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

#94

Post by mech422 »

Retric wrote: post #89
mech422 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Breaking up the bells quickly resulted in dramatic price drops. I can't remember how different my bills were, but I do remember all the jokes about how breaking Bell up made things worse.

Local rates went up before stabilizing, long distance rates quickly tanked. In May 1984, AT&T implemented its first rate reduction in 14 years, knocking an average 6.1 percent off interstate long-distance prices. Long distance prices fell 38% by 1988 ignoring inflation. And continued to drop in the years afterwards. Now how much this was a net benefit at the time really depended on how much you used long distance cal…

Heh..I actually did the long distance thing for BBSs with my lil C64 and a 300 baud modem. QuickMail with BlueWave offline reader, and TradeWarz2000! Heaven! :-)

I don't remember having to call long distance for an ISP though - dial up/shell ISP's sprang up in every lil nook and cranny :-)

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

#95

Post by octopoc »

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.

In 100 years, $600 billion market cap is going to be more common due to inflation. I think this way of setting the limit could be really good for future generations.

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

#96

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wbl wrote: post #86
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that ISPs don't even come close to those numbers is a good example of why tech companies are a much bigger problem than ISPs. ISPs are the monster under the bed big tech has been paying people to scare you with so you don't look too closely at them.

The competition for my ISP is not a click away.

Neither is Google's, their marketing to the contrary. Installing another app store on their phone OS (which has no competition) requires several steps involving disabling so-called security protections and then side-loading the store. Search is largely protected by the fact that every business must do business with Google if they're to have any customers at all, etc.

Obviously, physical infrastructure is a bit harder to switch, but I have three major wireline ISPs here, four major wireless ones, and I believe two satellite services are an option too. Meanwhile, most Google services have no meaningful competition that isn't incredible niche.

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

#97

Post by efnx »

pope_meat wrote: post #77
TeeMassive wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are not equivalent, though.

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

#98

Post by mLuby »

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 trust them to respond to incentives, chief of which is to do things they think will keep them in office.

The problems come when doing right by their constituents is no longer the biggest thing that keeps them in office (e.g. instead of outspending opponents on marketing). Or when there are incentives that are hidden from the public.

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

#99

Post by COGlory »

verall wrote: post #48
throwkeep wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a liberal and it's clear that big tech is suppressing dissenting voices. It's not targeted at conservatives specifically, but it captures them in larger number because tech and corporate media is mostly liberal and progressive. As such, conservative is by default a dissenting voice. Edit: See the lab leak hypothesis where big tech was suppressing and even banning people last year for questioning the approved narr…

> Managing director of Thiel Capital > posted a paper describing Geometric Unity online and went on Joe Rogan’s immensely popular podcast to discuss it What makes someone an old school progressive, in your opinion? I'm having trouble finding anything progressive about this person. His crackpot "theory of everything" has apparently been around since about 2013.

What's wrong with having a theory? When did science start to mean scientism?

The guy is clearly very bright. Perhaps you missed where he talked about the same theory with nobel laureate Roger Penrose.

Just because he might not be right about an extremely complex and hard to follow idea doesn't mean he shouldn't be studying it, discussing it, and engaging about it.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #96
wbl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The competition for my ISP is not a click away.

Neither is Google's, their marketing to the contrary. Installing another app store on their phone OS (which has no competition) requires several steps involving disabling so-called security protections and then side-loading the store. Search is largely protected by the fact that every business must do business with Google if they're to have any customers at all, etc. Obviously, physical infrastructure is a bit harder…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN