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

221–230 of 335 posts

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

#221

Post by bumby »

francoi8 wrote: post #79
mywittyname wrote: post #63

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…

The larger a company becomes, the more it should be regulated.

Larger in terms of what? Market share? Revenue? Profit margin? Staffing?

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

#222

Post by bumby »

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.

This isn't a new problem though. Anti-trust laws have been enforced previously without a strict definition.

"Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred"[1]

[1]Section of Antitrust Law, Am. Bar Ass'n, Market Power Handbook 19­20 (2005).

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

#223

Post by cornellwright »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #217
cornellwright wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon's search is so bad that it's almost certainly intentional in order to get customers to look at more products. This is a great example of them using their monopoly power to increase their revenue to the detriment of consumers. For an idea of what it could be, try the search on electronic component distributor sites like Digikey[1] and Newark[2]. They are both improving their search in order to attract more cust…

I’m skeptical that making users spend a long time trying to find the right monitor would actually be good for Amazon’s revenue or that Amazon would intentionally optimize for it. If the typical user really experienced that struggle, many would probably give up without making a purchase. To hazard a guess, I’d speculate that apparent poor quality of search results is more likely Amazon trying to push customers toward…

Amazon deliberately leading users to a suboptimal product because they get more margin seems like exactly the sort of thing that competition should help to resolve (or at least limit). The fact that search is so bad is probably evidence of too little competition.

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

#224

Post by dane-pgp »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #171
mikkergp wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'my colleagues are on twitter by not mastodon' example doesn't feel salient to me. The best example would probably be MMORPG's. Should people who play WoW have access to people who play FFIV? I guess the question would be is social networking more a communications utility like a cell phone or e-mail, or is it more of a recreational activity. Personally I've never felt like not being on facebook took access away f…

I think the MMORPG example is off for a few reasons: 1. The primary product of an MMORPG isn’t access to a social network. 2. The social networks in these games is far smaller than social media platforms (we don’t usually worry about anti-trust for tiny markets) 3. As you mentioned, social media platforms are communications/infrastructure, not recreation.

> 1. The primary product of an MMORPG isn’t access to a social network.

Exactly. You can switch to another MMORPG and find another level 29 healer to restore your HP, but if your mother only uses Facebook, it's much harder to switch to a different social network and find another woman who gave birth to you.

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

#226

Post by dane-pgp »

sanderjd wrote: post #137
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

There is absolutely other ways to get between those people in all those cases. That's exactly why it doesn't hold.

You could also walk between point A and point B, but that doesn't mean that rail monopolies aren't a problem.

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

#228

Post by huitzitziltzin »

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…

Your analysis is correct, but the quality of antitrust commentary on this site is not that high! Neither Google nor Facebook is plausibly a monopoly.

This does not mean that they don't occasionally do things which violate antitrust laws! They do. And they should be punished for such violations. But they aren't monopolies.

~Antitrust economist.

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

#229

Post by colinmhayes »

sanderjd wrote: post #138
mrkurt wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antitrust is much broader than "monopolies". It's all about concentrated power. Saying "monopoly" is just shorthand for market power, it's not a binary definition.

> Antitrust is much broader than "monopolies". I'm with you here. > Saying "monopoly" is just shorthand for market power, it's not a binary definition. No, the word "monopoly" has an actual definition.

You can waste time on semantics or you accept that practically everyone means "company that abuses their overwhelming market power to create friction in the market" when they say monopoly.

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

#230

Post by huitzitziltzin »

HWR_14 wrote: post #107
sanderjd wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

This is exactly what antitrust law should not punish. Google has a large market share of search because it offers a good product. Antitrust law should preserve competition without punishing success.

People are free to use alternatives, including Bing. If they don't, that doesn't make Google a monopoly (which indeed in search they are not). It makes Google successful! (Though it is a successful firm which does occasionally violate antitrust laws in other areas and should be punished for that.)

Post reply on HN