Don't like congress critters sticking their nose so deeply in business. All of this was probably preventable if the SEC and other agencies had done their jobs. Don't change the rules for the future to address the current bad apples; just enforce the current rules.
House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
171–180 of 226 posts
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has some where around 80% of the search market in the US which is possibly enough to qualify as a monopoly.
Is this because they're a monopoly or because they're better than the competition?
I'm not sure what you mean? It is completely possible for a company with a superior product to be a monopoly. Google has a large market share because their products are generally better than their competitors.
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's to stop Amazon from splitting it's retail business into separate legal entities entities by category to stay under the arbitrary limits? This doesn’t work. Beneficial ownership and common control would trace through the legal entities. If Amazon actually splits up its business, on the other hand, that’s fine! That’s good! No need for anti-trust action; they did it themselves!
> If Amazon actually splits up its business, on the other hand, that’s fine! That’s good! No need for anti-trust action; they did it themselves! Let's assume for a moment that Amazon spun out... something. What specific problem does that solve? What specific benefit will the public/customers/clients/government receive? By what metrics is the split-up measure to measure whether it was a success or failure? I'm genuine…
Some forms of antitrust enforcement exists to protect the worker, other forms exist to protect the consumer.
In either case, metrics can be employed to test whether success has been achieved. Worker wages, consumer prices, profit margins, market concentration, etc. can all be employed to study the positive and negative consequences of antitrust policy.
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#174Good thing they’re focusing on this instead of global warming or voter disenfranchisement.
/s
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#175The "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…
You conveniently omitted the Exclusion class that makes the excerpt posted above quite reasonable. The only thing which is not completely clear to me is whether the items listed in the Exclusion class are combined using OR or AND.
In any way every once in a while the US surprises me in a very good way. Congrats if it passes.
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The only people who thought FB overpaid for Instagram were the same people who complained that FB wasn't a real business and was going to collapse at any moment. Ironically many of these people were HN commentators.
Anyone who worked in the space thought it was the most desirable property available, and wasn't surprised at the price given that Google was looking at social properties at the time too.
And no matter what people on HN thought, FB did buy Insta because it was a competitor:
The exchange was one of several potentially damning pieces of evidence in documents obtained by the U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, showing that Zuckerberg leveraged Facebook’s market power over competitors and bought Instagram because he was concerned about the fast growing company’s potential to turn users away from Facebook.
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/facebook-bought-inst...
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That Facebook, or Google, sells ad pricing via a live auction doesn't opine on whether that results in overcharging.
The mere fact that participation is effectively mandatory itself skews the market.
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#178The "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?
Why not just work for big tech directly if your ultimate end goal is to have your work be purchased by big tech? It's a lot more stable and you'll probably make more money.
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That Facebook, or Google, sells ad pricing via a live auction doesn't opine on whether that results in overcharging. The mere fact that participation is effectively mandatory itself skews the market.
Most things we buy are effectively mandatory though. Food, shelter, water, clothing, medicine, and so on and so forth. That can't be the criteria for breaking up a company, which in Facebooks case basically means making them spin Whatsapp and Instagram. (But the management and most of the owners stay the same, mind you)
Re: House lawmakers release anti-monopoly agenda for “a stronger online economy”
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this because they're a monopoly or because they're better than the competition?
I'm not sure what you mean? It is completely possible for a company with a superior product to be a monopoly. Google has a large market share because their products are generally better than their competitors.
It's possible for a company with a superior product to be a monopoly, and it's also possible for a company with a majority share in the market to not be a monopoly.