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

161–170 of 226 posts

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

#161

Post by easytiger »

mkolodny wrote: post #154

The "Platform Competition and Opportunity Act" looks like it would ban big tech companies from buying almost any other companies: "It shall be unlawful for a covered platform operator to acquire directly or indirectly... the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another person engaged in commerce or in any activity or affecting commerce." [0] [0] https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.go…

So why take risks and innovate if there is less purchase exit opportunity? Who writes these laws?

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

#162

Post by gentleman11 »

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…

For any of those companies besides apple, imagine setting the goal of never using one of the company’s services and of “escaping their grasp”. Aws runs most of the cloud and your local bookstores closed years ago so where do you get books? Everyone you email uses google. Facebook tracks everything you do even if you’re not a user. You can’t get away unless your life depended on it

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

#163

Post by kmeisthax »

jimbob45 wrote: post #113
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.

The problem with getting rid of pork-barrel spending is that it removes the one incentive for reps to cooperate on legislation with people they'd otherwise oppose. The only remaining force in legislation post-pork-barrel is ideological extremism.

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

#164

Post by kmeisthax »

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

The US could almost certainly make it a condition of future trade deals. We are absolute masterclasses in short-circuiting democracy by way of international relations.

See also: the policy laundering that got us DMCA 1201 and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

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

#165

Post by yxwvut »

easytiger wrote: post #161
mkolodny wrote: post #154

The "Platform Competition and Opportunity Act" looks like it would ban big tech companies from buying almost any other companies: "It shall be unlawful for a covered platform operator to acquire directly or indirectly... the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another person engaged in commerce or in any activity or affecting commerce." [0] [0] https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.go…

So why take risks and innovate if there is less purchase exit opportunity? Who writes these laws?

Rephrased: “Why burn VC cash with a never-profitable business model if you can’t become a money-losing growth engine for a tech giant to leverage to more effectively sling ads?”

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

#166

Post by Aerroon »

easytiger wrote: post #161
mkolodny wrote: post #154

The "Platform Competition and Opportunity Act" looks like it would ban big tech companies from buying almost any other companies: "It shall be unlawful for a covered platform operator to acquire directly or indirectly... the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another person engaged in commerce or in any activity or affecting commerce." [0] [0] https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.go…

So why take risks and innovate if there is less purchase exit opportunity? Who writes these laws?

Isn't it better if companies try to innovate and come up with products that can stand up on their own? Ie the goal should be to not exit in the first place.

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

#167

Post by tshaddox »

Aerroon wrote: post #166
easytiger wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why take risks and innovate if there is less purchase exit opportunity? Who writes these laws?

Isn't it better if companies try to innovate and come up with products that can stand up on their own? Ie the goal should be to not exit in the first place.

Yep. Any supporter of free market ideas ought to want more firms competing in each market.

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

#168

Post by xbmcuser »

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…

Today the patterns that big tech companies are following is the same as the so called train robber barons in the past. Use your monopoly or control in 1 thing to horn in on other businesses by subsidising .

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

#169

Post by missedthecue »

caymanjim wrote: post #134
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.

Standard Oil once had 90% market share, but by the time they were broken up, they had only ~60% market share.

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

#170

Post by missedthecue »

ethbr0 wrote: post #152
bawolff wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to charge overly high price for something that is free.

Free service -> non-free infrastructure / development -> corporate revenue -> who's really paying In this case, it's advertisers. Which is why all the antitrust suits are brought "for" the ad industry.

But aren't the ad prices derived by live auction? It's not as if Facebook is pricing above market equilibrium to extract monopoly rents.
Post reply on HN