Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 335 posts

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

#101

Post by Nasrudith »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
tqi wrote: post #4

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

> How does breaking up Facebook help fight misinformation, polarization, engagement baiting, objectionable content, etc? It reduces the influence that a monolithic Facebook can bring to bear against its critics in Congress. It also puts existential risk on the table. Fining Facebook out of existence is, presently, political suicide. Not only does it hit a massive slice of the electorate, it leaves them with no altern…

The problem has never, ever been that the legislature faces too much criticism. The "influnce" they have complained about for decades against them is red-faced anger that the scale dares to call them fat, that the mirror makes them look ugly.

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

#102

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #96
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71

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.

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.

I kinda fundamentally reject the premise here. When I say that a sandwich is "too expensive", I don't mean that there ought to be a law against selling sandwiches for that price.

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

#104

Post by AlbertCory »

jraph wrote: post #88
Kalium wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the idea of data portability and data dividends. I love it dearly. It gets at what are by far the most critical principles here - data sovereignty and data value. So it is with a heavy heart that I similarly always find myself deeply concerned by the security implications of such a world. As soon as you create data import and export functions, we will collectively realize that most people both have absolutely…

We should work on making user privacy more private, not more portable. If it does not exist it does not need to be ported. A piece of data which has been put somewhere is there forever . It cannot be moved, only copied. And we should disincentivize data collection by making it worthless or costly, so only the strict minimum to make something work is collected. edit: and having a central place where companies can requ…

> "We should work on making user privacy more private, not more portable." I don't understand this; can you explain?

I focused on getting data out of the FAANG Data companies. There would equally be regulations on getting it in. If you want to outlaw face recognition, you would make it illegal to add any data about facial characteristics. Or political affiliations, or porn history, etc. etc.

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

#106

Post by allturtles »

ho_schi wrote: post #15

As Wu and others have rightly pointed out, the straightforward Chicago School standard overlooks, among other things, the stifling effect monopolies can have on innovation. As a case in point: when AT&T was broken up in 1984, a torrent of new products came on the market, everything from the first answering machines to early ISPs. This is a oversimplification and wrong. AT&T was controlled by the government until 1984…

I think it's even more wrong than that, and suffers badly from post hoc ergo propter hoc.

How could the growth of answering machines be connected to the break-up of AT&T, which was about separating local from long-distance service? According to https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nma..., there were commercial answering machines being sold in the U.S. in 1960. The increase in the use of answering machines in the 1980s likely had a lot more to do with the emergence of cheap microchips and cassette tapes, which greatly reduced their cost.

And what did the breakup of AT&T have to do with the creation of the first ISPs? Even before the breakup, anyone could create their own separate communications networks if they wanted. There were already commercial computer networks like TymNet and consumer proto-ISPs like CompuServe before the breakup and the breakup had no effect on them.

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

#107

Post by HWR_14 »

sanderjd wrote: post #46
camjohnson26 wrote: post #9

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 question posed by the monopolies is not "are these the only options". But do these wield too much market power to be controlled by the market. That is, sure, Bing and DDG make up 5% of the global search, but is that enough. Yes, people use Twitter and TikTok, but does that replace the social graph of FB? Yes, I can buy directly online from many places, but if people are going to Amazon instead of Google to search for prices does it matter?

So, my question to you, if every non-Google search engine published their formula for rankings, and SEO for going up all their rankings was mutually exclusive with going up in Google's rankings, do you believe any site would implement them?

I doubt anyone would trade higher status on every other engine for lower status on Google. And in that case, they may as well be a monopoly.

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

#108

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ItsMonkk wrote: post #67
jeremydeanlakey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"when a company has a monopoly on a network it... basically becomes a government." A monopoly functions like a government. Or inverted: a government functions like a monopoly. I find both angles interesting.

I'm found of "a democratically elected government is the least bad monopoly". If you must have a monopoly, it should be a government. But if you can avoid a monopoly, do that instead.

An important corollary to this is that monopolies should be isolated rather than integrated.

Suppose we say the municipal water system is a natural monopoly, so we're going to have the government do it.

Well, then the head of the municipal water system should be an elected position, so that if they're screwing it up, people can vote the bums out without having to remove a mayor or governor who might otherwise be doing a good job on some other issues and therefore be hard to remove.

That's the biggest problem with federal elections. Each party does a different set of terrible things and you can't vote against one set of failures without voting for the other one when everything is integrated.

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

#109

Post by toast0 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #42
camjohnson26 wrote: post #9

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…

What I want addressed is how we can bust these companies without making the experience worse for consumers or making things less efficient. A railroad that'd require a toll every mile because you split one company into hundreds wouldn't be viable. If I had to visit multiple web pages to get the same result as a google search, that'd also be bad. Amazon online shopping has a "monopoly" almost purely because the monopo…

The railroad example would be solved by forming a single-purpose clearing house business to distribute the tolls, collected by the origin or destination carrier, among all the rail providers on the route. It's the same process in banking --- you can deposit a check drawn on any bank, and a clearing house process routes the funds. It's the same in public stock trading, you can use any brokerage, but almost all shares are owned by Cede & Co on the corporate books.

You can split out payment and address retention easily: paypal and amazon both offer 3rd party checkout systems. If we're trustbusting Amazon, force that to be an independent company, offered on FRAND terms to all.

I think you could probably seperate into three business the fulfilment included marketplace consignment store from the merchant fulfilled marketplace consignment store from the sold by amazon store. Although, since two of those share facilities, it might be a little tough. Perhaps, splitting off the store from the inventory makes more sense --- if Amazon is just one of the marketplace vendors and the marketplace is a separate entity, that eliminates some of the unfair practices (require marketplace vendors to share sources, contract sources directly to undercut marketplace vendors).

You could also split off warehouses off into individual or regional baby-bell style corporations; vendors could send to whichever warehouses they like, the marketplace could choose which warehouse to use to fulfill orders, each warehouse could be reasonably independent.

Shipping/delivery could clearly be made independent. AWS, too.

I think the point of trustbusting is not necessarily to eliminate monopoly or dominant businesses, it's to reduce the scope of the monopoly such that dominance in one area doesn't become dominance in more areas. If there's a single purpose marketplace corporation, it may be dominant, but if it's prevented from controlling warehousing, shipping, and inventory, there's more room in those areas. After the breakup, you can still come back and do more to address the smaller areas, if they prove to be problematic under the new system.

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

#110

Post by alisonkisk »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #96
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71

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.

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.

Antitrust law is law against being too powerful.
Post reply on HN