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

111–120 of 226 posts

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

#111

Post by Aperocky »

mLuby wrote: post #98
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.

> do things they think will keep them in office.

You do know that for many of them they have a virtual lock on their seat and the incentive no longer aligns right?

For some/most, the primary driver can be characterized as self advancement.

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

#112

Post by dodobirdlord »

mavelikara wrote: post #106
azinman2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to suggest that few giant companies are optimal. If so, why not take that to the full extend - have just one player in the market by the government nationalizing all tech companies and merging into one? (I am not suggesting that as a credible alternative).

Because competition is good, and monopolies are bad. It’s just that we don’t actually have any monopolies in the tech industry, and people who say we do are wrong and/or pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with market competition.

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

#113

Post by jimbob45 »

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.

It doesn’t have to be the way you’re describing.

There was a bill a while back to force bill contents to be narrowly scoped (I.e. no pork barrel spending). It failed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t push for its passage in the future anyway.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

lend000 wrote: post #52
shakezula wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Standard Oil claim is historically false. Kerosene prices fell dramatically during Standard Oil's tenure [0]. The competition did not benefit from Standard Oil, but consumers benefitted dramatically. A malevolent monopoly needs government support to sustain itself for long (like today's telecoms/internet companies). All of the natural monopolies that have existed without rent seeking either greatly benefitted the…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by tmotwu »

aerosmile wrote: post #92
tmotwu wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-ti…

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove here. As far as I am concerned, Google and Facebook have not been broken up into pieces of YouTube and Instagram yet. How does this in any way demonstrate what would happen if we broke up big tech? Sounds like further evidence they need to be released from their mismanagement.

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

#116

Post by jimbob45 »

efnx wrote: post #97
pope_meat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe not at specific points in time but, over the long term, they make exceedingly similar choices.

The GOP backed No Child Left Behind which was an abject failure. Back then, it was easy for the left to claim that they would do better when given the opportunity. However, now the left is pushing Critical Race Theory in schools which is equally stupid and damaging.

You can point to the left as doing a much worse job at this particular point in time but the reality is that both sides have made roughly equally stupid choices over the long run.

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

#117

Post by mahogany »

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…

> 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.

Okay, but tens of millions of other Americans have only one broadband choice (if they have one at all). There is clearly a monopoly issue there.

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

#118

Post by rkk3 »

aerosmile wrote: post #64
mikeiz404 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I’m taking you too literally here but none of the bills in the article talk about splitting companies up. The bills mentioned limit acquisitions of their competitors, increase funding for merger investigations, require data portability, limit self-preferencing on platform, and limit self-preferencing across business areas. At least this is what is stated in the article. I have not read the bills.

"Breaking up big tech" or "throwing monkey wrenches into their gears" is related enough that it might be worth paying attention to the OP's overall point - we're applying these rules only to American companies which will automatically a) help Chinese companies like Tik Tok compete against Facebook and Snap, and b) disincentivize them from opening US offices. Why isn't there a 6th bill saying something like: "because…

> Who is going to prevent ByteDance from acquiring every competitive Chinese company

China's social platform ecosystem probably has more diversity than the US. This hypothetical doesn't work great since Tencent(WeChat) is it-least twice the size of ByteDance...

I do agree with the premise that regulation on American companies does have an effect on how competitive they are globally.

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

#119

Post by rsynnott »

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

In practice, large countries can regulate companies which operate within their borders. It’s normal for mergers of multinationals to seek approval from US authorities, the EC, and sometimes Chinese authorities today, over competition issues. Today, the EC is typically the fussiest, but it doesn’t seem that out there to imagine a world where the US gets stricter.

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

#120

Post by jeffbee »

octopoc wrote: post #95
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.

The limit is indexed to CPI.
Post reply on HN