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

221–226 of 226 posts

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

#221

Post by mikeiz404 »

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…

Fair point. I wasn't sure how closely the original commenter had read the article so I figured some clarification would be helpful.

With respect to "breaking up big tech" and it being harmful to US companies on a global stage, my guess is that over a long enough time period monopolistic companies tend stop being innovative since their motivations in how to derive profit shift. I believe that will end up being harmful for the societies and countries they exist in. Countries, societies, and industries which can stay competitive I think would benefit in the long run so long as they are not consumed by that global monopoly. In the short run it could be pretty harmful.

Just an opinion I'm not too strongly tied to at the moment. It would be interesting to see an economic study or something.

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

#222

Post by LordDragonfang »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #210
LordDragonfang wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. CRT posits that differences among raci…

> Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. I knew someone was going to be pedantic which is why I phrased it as I did. The term is becoming overloaded, and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m…

My mistake, I assumed that your username actually reflected your account. In retrospect, I think I recall seeing you before, but you obviously don't have a very distinctive name.

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

#223

Post by eru »

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.

Eh, if you actually look into public opinion, you'll be glad that politicians don't listen more to their constituency.

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

#224

Post by eru »

robomartin wrote: post #155
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 fundamentally distrust these people (on both sides) I always try to understand which votes they are trying to buy. Seriously. If we model politicians as individuals evolving through an evolutionary algorithm it becomes very clear that their fitness function has very few variables. Money and votes. Not sure what else. Once they learned that votes can be had with promises, rather than execution, all was lost. Polit…

Money is not a big deal in politics. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...

If anything there's too little money in politics, not too much.

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

#225

Post by mr_toad »

rsynnott wrote: post #132
mr_toad wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Those are organisations that have a local presence, over which some leverage can be exerted. Many US companies with no EU operations are simply ignoring the GDPR.

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

#226

Post by tacotacotaco »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #109
tacotacotaco wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... but (with my consumer hat on), I don't really care about ad buyers that much. Ad buyers are the consumers. You are the product.

No, ad buyers are businesses. As much as business interests have been trying to redefine negative impact on consumers as including out-competing rival companies, that’s not what it means.

A rancher doesn't provide a pasture because the cattle are their customer.
Post reply on HN