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

121–130 of 226 posts

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

#121

Post by zer00eyz »

We are talking about the big tech companies...

Name one that is an ACTUAL monopoly? Facebook? Apple? Google? Amazon? Vertical integration is NOT monopoly, and thats what many of them are doing.

I see a lot of arguments about these companies that are tantamount to "I didn't know how the world worked till I saw them do it and now I'm unhappy".

After starting to dig a bit further than this article into what some of these would contain, someone with some tech savvy needs to get themselves to the capital and educate our legislators.

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

#122

Post by rsynnott »

plandis wrote: post #65

Interestingly enough the main sponsor for one of the bills (Jayapal) represents pretty much all the tech workers that work at Amazon in Seattle. Wonder how they will feel knowing their representative is proposing legislation will likely hurt their financial well-being. Edit: Why the downvotes? I think it’s an interesting dynamic between constituents and their representative.

How would it do that? It’s not like Amazon is going to go “oh, well, if we can’t be an abusive monopoly we’ll just close down”. They (or their fragments) will presumably still need employees, who they’ll have to pay market rates to.

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

#123

Post by mr_toad »

rsynnott wrote: post #119
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.

> operate within their borders

That can be a problematic concept for online businesses with no local presence.

You can try and apply tariffs on imports, but policing imports, especially of services, is hard.

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

#124

Post by mtkhaos »

zer00eyz wrote: post #121

We are talking about the big tech companies... Name one that is an ACTUAL monopoly? Facebook? Apple? Google? Amazon? Vertical integration is NOT monopoly, and thats what many of them are doing. I see a lot of arguments about these companies that are tantamount to "I didn't know how the world worked till I saw them do it and now I'm unhappy". After starting to dig a bit further than this article into what some of thes…

Better phrasing now a days is the elimination of middle man industries in favor of public infrastructure projects.

As ultimately what these companies represent is toll road to the content others create.

As what these companies do is common sense. My own father created what became the modern search paradigm and was subsequently kicked off the project that later became yahoo.

So from my perspective what these companies do is not innovative.

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

#125

Post by cortesoft »

zer00eyz wrote: post #121

We are talking about the big tech companies... Name one that is an ACTUAL monopoly? Facebook? Apple? Google? Amazon? Vertical integration is NOT monopoly, and thats what many of them are doing. I see a lot of arguments about these companies that are tantamount to "I didn't know how the world worked till I saw them do it and now I'm unhappy". After starting to dig a bit further than this article into what some of thes…

You don't need to have a full monopoly to be considered a monopoly under the law in the United States. You can be considered a legal monopoly if you have significant market power and can charge overly high prices for things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

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

#126

Post by elzbardico »

zer00eyz wrote: post #121

We are talking about the big tech companies... Name one that is an ACTUAL monopoly? Facebook? Apple? Google? Amazon? Vertical integration is NOT monopoly, and thats what many of them are doing. I see a lot of arguments about these companies that are tantamount to "I didn't know how the world worked till I saw them do it and now I'm unhappy". After starting to dig a bit further than this article into what some of thes…

Instagram was a probable competitor for Facebook. Facebook bought it. Facebook was feeling threatened by the success of WhatsApp on instant messaging? bought. if it doesn't look to you like a monopoly, or at least something seriously and credibly moving to become a monopoly, by the time they meet your criteria, it would be too late to do anything about it.

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

#127

Post by efnx »

jimbob45 wrote: post #116
efnx wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, full stop. The two American parties are not equivalent in their modern forms.

You can use “over the long term” to further any point you like because at one point the Republican Party was the liberal, progressive party before it adopted the original southern strategy.

Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people).

Also your argument is about the two parties being the same over the long term, but then you give a very short term anecdote, and one that isn’t very compelling.

I’m sorry to appear so argumentative but it seems you are falling into the trap of false equivalence on multiple levels.

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

#128

Post by elzbardico »

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.

For the vast majority of people on dense urban areas, it is.

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

#130

Post by tristan957 »

wnevets wrote: post #129

Regulate ISPs because they have an actual monopoly? Nope, that's socialism Regulate "Big Tech" because they banned inciting violence on their platforms? Absolutely, that's freedom.

Strawman arguments like this are entirely pointless, especially on HN. Please refrain from making them because it's obvious you aren't interested in real conversation.
Post reply on HN