Live data from Hacker News

Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

lareviewofbooks.org

91–100 of 335 posts

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#91

Trust busting can seem like it’s anti free market, but when a company has a monopoly on a network it stops functioning as a company and basically becomes a government. The problem with Facebook/Amazon/Google is that they have a monopoly on a specific information network, for Facebook the social graph, internet discoverability for Google, and online shopping for Amazon. It’s similar to if a single company owned the ro…

I know this is the inevitable and cliche pushback, but it never seems to be grappled with so it remains worth pointing out: none of the three things you mentioned are anywhere close to monopolies. There are lots of social networks (Twitter and TikTok are extremely successful, among others), lots of ways to search the internet, and lots of ways to shop online. The analogy with the railroads simply is not apt, their mo…

> The analogy with the railroads simply is not apt, their monopoly was so powerful because there was often no other way to get from point A to point B, so they had complete leverage.

I still believe the analogy holds, just substitute geographical points A and B with person A and person B (or business A to potential client B), and the similarities are obviously clear. There is often no other way to get from person A to person B than to use Facebook, or from person C to D without Twitter, ... . Yes, there are various social networks, but there was also various railway barons. Just like the railway was not a single nationwide monopoly, but instead a series of smaller regional monopolies, a single social network is not an all encompassing internet-wide monopoly, but instead a monopoly lording over a subgroup.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#92
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monopoly is not on the consumer side, it is on the advertising side. Google and Facebook are the only companies that have access to data on basically every sale on the internet (almost every site that uses their ad tools reports back their sales). This data gives them a defensible duopoly on digital advertising.

> Google and Facebook are the only companies that have access to data on basically every sale on the internet Amazon? eBay? WeChat?

Sites report their data back to Google analytics and Facebook by implementing their pixels. People don't do this for Amazon, ebay, wechat.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#94

I'd really prefer lawyers and congress to focus on breaking up monopolies in the health care system, where the government requires certificate of need and through licensing allows cartels to control the supply of labor to ensure high salaries. You know, actually abusing their monopoly position.

But that doesn't get them editorial influnce over an estate of power! Seriously it has been obvious from the start that the pissiness over "big tech" is really about them not doing the impossible and providing the exact influnce they want. So monopoly is their legal thug pretext because the judge would break their hand slapping them across the face for their blatantly First Ammendment violations if they said what they really wanted.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then what if social networks capped the number of users at 1 below that threshold? For example, if nationalization occurs at 1 million users, what if all social networks limited the number of accounts to 999,999?. Personally I think that would be awesome. Imagine if every town, city, and borough of very large cities had their own independent social network or networks.

> [W]hat if all social networks limited the number of accounts to 999,999? That's interesting. It opens the door to the possibility that social networks might pay people to leave, in order to open spaces for more long-term-valuable customers.

Why would they pay people to leave? They could arbitrarily kick them out for violation some obscure T&Cs, or for no stated reason at all...

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right on the technicals, but the GP is right in spirit. It seems like society needs a term for the concept of a company accumulating far too much power, and that we need laws similar to anti-trust laws, that apply to these companies. This is an incredibly difficult problem to address specifically because FB is not a classic monopoly. I'm not even sure what it would mean to "break them up". Amazon, MS, Apple, a…

Isn't the term just "too powerful"? It seems to me that the reason we don't have laws against companies being too powerful is that most people don't think it's a big deal for companies to be too powerful, as long as they're not monopolies.

If people thought an entity was “too powerful”, then they would want a law against the entity, otherwise the word “too” does not mean anything.

The reason there is no law against being “too powerful” is because it is a nebulous description that is not enforceable in a fair manner.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#98

Trust busting can seem like it’s anti free market, but when a company has a monopoly on a network it stops functioning as a company and basically becomes a government. The problem with Facebook/Amazon/Google is that they have a monopoly on a specific information network, for Facebook the social graph, internet discoverability for Google, and online shopping for Amazon. It’s similar to if a single company owned the ro…

I know this is the inevitable and cliche pushback, but it never seems to be grappled with so it remains worth pointing out: none of the three things you mentioned are anywhere close to monopolies. There are lots of social networks (Twitter and TikTok are extremely successful, among others), lots of ways to search the internet, and lots of ways to shop online. The analogy with the railroads simply is not apt, their mo…

When a system has two billion users, then it is the world's largest government. It really doesn't matter if it meets one nation's definition of monopoly.

Facebook literally rivals the Catholic Church for participation. Zuck is literally the Pope of his own empire.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#99
post #4

How does breaking up Facebook help fight misinformation, polarization, engagement baiting, objectionable content, etc?

I agree. The only thing that will come after breaking up (destroying) Facebook is that everyone will move to Chinese/Russian platforms.

Generation Z is almost entirely on TikTok so Facebook/Instagram doesn't have a monopoly on them.

Re: Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the term just "too powerful"? It seems to me that the reason we don't have laws against companies being too powerful is that most people don't think it's a big deal for companies to be too powerful, as long as they're not monopolies.

Well yes but that term is too honest for its own good as a matter of opinion. "Too powerful" is an absolutely arbitrary standard with no desire for internal consistency. Which is exactly the opposite of what you want in laws.

I agree with what you're saying, but that's exactly the problem. I don't think the author of the source article has a clear, internally consistent standard, and I don't think any consistent standard exists that would tell you Google and Facebook need to be broken up but CVS and Costco don't.
Post reply on HN