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

291–300 of 335 posts

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

#291

Post by sjtindell »

HWR_14 wrote: post #195
oconnor663 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the formal definitions of any of these things are, but I assume (hope?) that it's important not to equate being successful with being a monopoly by definition. If Ford came out with an amazing new car tomorrow, and suddenly 95% of new cars purchased were Fords, we probably shouldn't initiate trust-busting action against Ford on that basis alone. We want car companies to try to capture market share b…

> suddenly 95% of new cars purchased were Fords, we probably shouldn't initiate trust-busting action against Ford on that basis alone. Antitrust law isn't about stopping people from accumulating a dominant position. It's about stopping people from using that dominant position to maintain itself or to spread to other areas. Ford produces the "Amazing Car" that everyone wants, costs $1, etc. great! When Ford uses an RF…

Good take, very much agree. That’s why so many of the antitrust work against Google/FB, etc. has focused on acquisitions. They become successful, then use their data and infinite money printers to buy anyone who would compete.

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

#292

Post by orionblastar »

It happened to AT&T during the 1980s. Got split up into Baby Bells. My father worked for AT&T and was forced into early retirement after teaching new employees how to do his job as an installer.

Then the DOJ set sights on Microsoft, but they avoided it.

I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would think about Google, Twitter, Amazon, Google having so much money and power?

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

#293

Post by stale2002 »

sanderjd wrote: post #243
colinmhayes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't semantics. You want to use the word monopoly to mean something different than what it means. Feel free to make the more nuanced point about "abusing market power", but if you're building your argument around the word monopoly, you need to be using that word to mean what it means.

> mean something different than what it means.

Literally this is semantics. Literally, you are arguing about the definition of a word. So yes, by definition, you are quit literally arguing about what a word means, which is semantics.

That's what the word "semantics" means.

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

#294

Post by opensoc108 »

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…

At minimum big tech (GAFAM) is guilty of Data Trafficking, Illegal Wiretapping and Racketeering.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amazon-copied-produ...

Every interaction with them is blindfolded deep cavity strip search with average 30 agents(30 cookies) without our permission. Even the EU data compliance pop ups don’t show participants of this heinous data molestation.

Forget antitrust, they ought to be tried under racketeering laws or RICCO statues which was used against mafia. Bork and Lina khan doctrine while relevant can’t help us restore the old internet from the current toxic ad littered pages.

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

#296

Post by dreamcompiler »

Unfettered capitalism always tends toward monopolies, and then the invisible hand stops working and the whole system stops being capitalism. Capitalists who complain about competition are effectively complaining about the backbone of capitalism itself.

Healthy capitalism requires antitrust regulation for the same reason football requires referees.

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

#297

Post by anamax »

inetknght wrote: post #269
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Google has a large market share of search because it offers a good product No. Google has a large market share of search because it got in early, presented some synergistic products, heavily biased search results towards its own products to reinforce that, heavily gamed advertising bidding in its favor, placed anti-competitive requirements on hardware manufacturers of Android devices, and locked-in consumers' data…

> No. Google has a large market share of search because it got in early

"got in early" compared to what?

There were dozens of search engines before Google.

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

#298

Post by tablespoon »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #232
tablespoon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what the formal definitions of any of these things are, but I assume (hope?) that it's important not to equate being successful with being a monopoly by definition. If Ford came out with an amazing new car tomorrow, and suddenly 95% of new cars purchased were Fords, we probably shouldn't initiate trust-busting action against Ford on that basis alone. We want car companies to try to capture market share…

> There's an important difference between "capturing market share" and "capturing too much the market share." No. Not in the economics of antitrust. There is no "too much market share" threshold. Unless consumer welfare is harmed there is no reason to complain that a firm is "too big." > From my experience as a customer, Amazon's e-commerce operation hasn't improved much (e.g. their search is still as shitty as ever)…

> No. Not in the economics of antitrust. There is no "too much market share" threshold. Unless consumer welfare is harmed there is no reason to complain that a firm is "too big."

Consumers are harmed by a "too big" firm that's under little to no pressure to improve its products. The retort to that usually "wait a few decades until the market sorts that out," but frankly, I could be dead by then.

Another poster addressed how the "consumer welfare" standard is not so much an economic argument, but rather a legal enforcement framework. I see little mechanism for consumer welfare to be harmed by the creation of multiple successor companies that all share the same successful formula of the "too big" firm but now have to compete with one another.

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

#300

Post by VRay »

AlbertCory wrote: post #209
VRay wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your plan for "anonymized" data that's all hilariously easy to de-anonymize? Example: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/20/opinion/locat...

Have you mistaken me for someone with a 2,300 page legislative proposal all ready to go? Anyhow, in the spirit of HN working this out together (should we form a bipartisan Working Group for this?): Any data which, taken together, improperly identifies an individual may not be stored at all. I can't think of any reason why anyone outside of law enforcement needs this location information. How's that?

I love it
Post reply on HN