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

The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#231

Post by summerlight »

arrosenberg wrote: post #229
summerlight wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Even assuming that this is a good idea, this have an unnecessary risk of being unconstitutional and getting scrapped by the justices. If you want to limit property rights in this fundamental way, that has to be based on a very strong judicial basis. That's why almost all reasonable antitrust regulation happens in a reactive…

The constitution says nothing adverse to regulating entities that are not actively doing harm (though I disagree). Congress can write any standard they want into law if you get the right legislators in a room. Antitrust is reactive because consolidation is a slow burn and it takes a while for a critical mass of voters to feel the problem. Thats why Obama and Biden have taken completely different approaches, despite b…

Regulations have to happen in a "Necessary and Proper" way (see 8.18). The Congress is delegated with a strong legislative power, but it's not something limitless.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#232

Post by huitzitziltzin »

taeric wrote: post #218
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

But is it free if it costs them billions? That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant. There is evidence that they believe paying for the "default" billing is worth a ton of money. Not just to Apple, but to Mozilla, too. That they could lose access to revenue streams by losing default billing is very relevant when that is also a large portion of how they are able to make that payment. Co…

>> That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant

On the contrary, it’s the whole ballgame in a case like this. Google’s claim will be: “we have high market share because our product is good. Look - customers could switch for free if they didn’t like it.” The government cannot make a monopolization claim solely on the basis of high market share in this case. It’s not remotely persuasive. (Indeed: who do you do your searches with??)

>> “there is evidence…”

Totally agree with this sentence. But it’s not going to be decisive for the government. It will not be remotely sufficient. Again - it’s not clear to me personally that this behavior is pro-competitive. But I’ve already told you what google is going to say. If you’re going to argue monopolization you have to define the market (here search) and then show it’s monopolized. Market share isn’t enough.

>> could see it more as collusion…

Not legally. Sorry. Not without some specific evidence of a conspiracy.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#233

Post by huitzitziltzin »

arrosenberg wrote: post #216
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

As the article and others are pointing out, Google achieves 'free' Search through bundling and predatory pricing, which are both anticompetitive.

“Bundling” can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally identify a meaningful bundle from google in the right sense. You may be using the word informally.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#234

Post by huitzitziltzin »

candiddevmike wrote: post #226
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

It's not free, but you aren't paying money for it.

In other words… it’s free. Google search is free.

All of this “… then you are the product” stuff is totally meaningless legally and economically.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#235

Post by huitzitziltzin »

frays wrote: post #214
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

I wonder if Google will talk about the rise of AI-powered competitors (ChatGPT, Bing, etc) as part of the search landscape to help defend their case.

If they don’t they should fire their lawyers. (They will.)

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#236

Post by arrosenberg »

summerlight wrote: post #231
arrosenberg wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution says nothing adverse to regulating entities that are not actively doing harm (though I disagree). Congress can write any standard they want into law if you get the right legislators in a room. Antitrust is reactive because consolidation is a slow burn and it takes a while for a critical mass of voters to feel the problem. Thats why Obama and Biden have taken completely different approaches, despite b…

Regulations have to happen in a "Necessary and Proper" way (see 8.18). The Congress is delegated with a strong legislative power, but it's not something limitless.

That clause basically says “Congress shall have the authority to make laws that enable it to execute its powers”. It has nothing to do with what you said. Its there to prevent judicial chicanery, not encourage it.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#237

Post by nologic01 »

Advertising is not intrinsically evil but mix an incompetent and captured political class with the surveillance and personal targeting possibilities opened by fast moving information technology (the advent of the web and mobile) and you get the closest approximation to dystopia that has ever existed: Surveillance Capitalism [1], as first defined and analyzed by Zuboff.

People have normalized that an advertiser is the technology gatekeeper for the vast majority of web users and enjoying an unassailable duopoly in mobile. People have normalized being the product and not the client.

Yet this is not normal. It is a farcical, grotesque parody of how a non-dystopic digital economy should be structured. Advertising intermediaries should not control general purpose information technologies that vast numbers of people rely on. This is a job for ring-fenced and properly regulated technology companies. It is incredible to have come that, but its now obvious that the much despised Microsoft monopoly of yesteryear was a far more benign condition, being actually a monopoly facing client users and within the tech sector proper.

The world has paid a heavy price for this regulatory abnormality. Counterfactuals are hard to make concrete but there is at least a decade of stagnation, productivity loss and value destruction across the technology space from the lack of competition and innovation. Beyond economics, this will be a defining moment for the shape and nature of digital society. You can't resolve any of the brewing disruptions (digital finance, AI) when there is such commingling of conflicting interests, so much hypocrisy, such systemic, large scale breach of trust.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#238

Post by arrosenberg »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #233
arrosenberg wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article and others are pointing out, Google achieves 'free' Search through bundling and predatory pricing, which are both anticompetitive.

“Bundling” can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally identify a meaningful bundle from google in the right sense. You may be using the word informally.

I wasn’t referring to the case specifically, but Google is absolutely bundling products in the formal, illegal sense as well.

Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products?

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#239

Post by zdragnar »

nologic01 wrote: post #237

Advertising is not intrinsically evil but mix an incompetent and captured political class with the surveillance and personal targeting possibilities opened by fast moving information technology (the advent of the web and mobile) and you get the closest approximation to dystopia that has ever existed: Surveillance Capitalism [1], as first defined and analyzed by Zuboff. People have normalized that an advertiser is the…

I will happily take this "dystopia" over many places in the world.

Of course, it would be nice if we could change some things, but opening the argument with this level of hyperbole makes the rest difficult to follow.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#240

Post by TheCoelacanth »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #198
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

Look, I’m not informed or an expert here, but if it’s being given away for free, then the search itself is not the “product”. The way I understand it, Google’s monopoly is over the ad market. Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own. My assumption…

> You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own.

I think that entire line of jurisprudence is a tragic mistake.

The wording of the law is crystal clear: "shall not monopolize", not "shall not monopolize unless it's just a really good product".

A 95% market share should not be allowed under any circumstances.

Post reply on HN