House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy” • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by CodeMage » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

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…

> 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".

Just out of curiosity: which aspect of those arguments do you object to, if any? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand your point of view.

There was a time where monopolies were "how the world worked", until the society collectively decided that it's not how the world should work. If Google and Amazon aren't actual monopolies, then maybe we need a new name and a new set of rules.

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

#132

Post by rsynnott » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #123

rsynnott wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you think American internet companies are following the GDPR in their European operations just for fun? Or Chinese rules in their Chinese operations?

In practice, most multinationals are not too comfortable blatantly violating the law in large markets.

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

#133

Post by wnevets » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

tristan957 wrote: post #130

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.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the official HN arbitrator on what is pointless or not.

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

#134

Post by caymanjim » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

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…

When Standard Oil was broken up, it wasn't a 100% monopoly. Nor was AT&T. I'm not sure what your criteria are, but if you're just being pedantic, it doesn't seem to have any historical bearing. The great monopolies of US history that prompted legal change never had complete control. They just had de facto control due to outsized influence and predatory (or at least anticompetitive) behavior.

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

#135

Post by Thorncorona » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #133

tristan957 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the official HN arbitrator on what is pointless or not.

Regardless, you're being needlessly antagonistic.

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

#136

Post by dean177 » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

elzbardico wrote: post #126

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.

When Instagram was purchased by Facebook it was not viewed as a competitor at all, it was widely viewed as a terrible decision with FB massively overpaying.

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

#137

Post by ergot_vacation » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

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…

Ah yes, Amazon isn't a monopoly. That's why I often use the alternative online shopping site that has nearly every mass-produced item imaginable at low prices and low or free shipping. Same with Facebook: it's good thing there's that competitor of theirs that nearly everyone is on, catching up, organizing local events, buying and selling stuff. And man, I don't know where I would be without that other Internet search engine that rapidly and intelligently indexes almost everything online as soon as it's up and has been so fine-tuned over more than a decade that it has an almost psychic ability to correctly interpret even the most vague, misspelled and deranged search queries. It's truly amazing that humanity managed to make such a wonder of technology not just once, but twice!

Really, I don't know what the lawmakers are thinking. Competition is alive and well on the Internet! Innovation has never been higher! Absolutely nothing has gotten worse since 2008! Boy I can't wait for the next version of Firefox. It totally won't be even more like Chrome this time.

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

#138

Post by _-david-_ » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

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…

Google has some where around 80% of the search market in the US which is possibly enough to qualify as a monopoly.

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

#139

Post by wnevets » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

Thorncorona wrote: post #135

wnevets wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the official HN arbitrator on what is pointless or not.

Regardless, you're being needlessly antagonistic.

How so? Ken Buck is against regulating ISPs. My comment wasn't a strawman, its literally his position.

> When asked about Pai’s work to unravel net neutrality rules, Buck said: “I support Chairman Pai’s efforts to free internet providers from burdensome regulations that stifle innovation and increase costs for Coloradans.” [1]

> The Far Left is attempting to enact their socialist agenda by tearing down statues and rewriting America’s history. > The United States of America will never be a socialist country—and we need to celebrate the Founders who made our nation so great. [2]

[1] https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/14/colorado-congress-net-...

[2] https://twitter.com/RepKenBuck/status/1301540179208007681

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

#140

Post by decebalus1 » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

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.

> Wonder how they will feel knowing their representative is proposing legislation will likely hurt their financial well-being.

If you're a rank-and-file employee in those companies and legitimately think these bills will significantly affect your financial well-being, you've successfully been brainwashed to believe that your stake in the company actually matters.