Live data from Hacker News

Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

alexdanco.com

101–110 of 153 posts

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#101
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We watch Microsoft choke Netscape to death in the 90's, and at the end of the day nothing happened. Well, yeah, nothing happened as the IE development was grounded to a halt.

The MS settlement with the DoJ was reached in 2001, about three months after the release of IE6. If anything I think history shows the opposite occurred. Internet Explorer continued rapidly evolving during the antitrust case and its development "grounded to a halt" after the government let Microsoft off the hook. Which makes enough sense. MS always viewed the web as an enemy and wanted people on windows apps as their…

> Ultimately it was Apple who succeeded at that vision, obviously.

At what vision?

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#102
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point though. Marketshare isn't necessarily a good indicator of a problematic monopoly. Imagine three companies dominate a given market. In most geographies, say 75%, the two larger companies company with each other and a few other stragglers. But in 25% geography a single company dominates. Who is the problem? The larger companies, competing in their broader market or the smaller company? As an exa…

>Meanwhile, people must tolerate anything Comcast pulls, though they certainly have a smaller share of the personal internet service provision market than Amazon does of the eretail marlet. People have Satellite, Cell providers, and usually a DSL option to choose from if they don't like Comcast. Those aren't particularly good options, but realistically neither are the other browsers besides Chrome. Plus, the only oth…

I understand this is a highly subjective distinction but having to use Edge, Safari or Firefox in place of Chrome is not nearly the same as the decrease in experience quality as switching from cable broadband to DSL, cellular or satellite.

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#103
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives. What is a quality alternative to Facebook? Diaspora was DOA, Mastodon is a cesspit, Twitter is nothing like Facebook, and G+ is long-dead.

> What is a quality alternative to Facebook? Independent forums and self-hosted blogging. They are about content and real connections with like-minded people. Instead of mindlessly posting little updates throughout the day just for the sake of posting updates, people should save it for when they actually have something to say. In general: read books not timelines.

> Independent forums and self-hosted blogging.

My social circles consists of ~6 different cliques of people with no intersection between them. I'm not going to move them all to one forum. Nobody will want to cross-post their life updates in 6 different forums.

> Instead of mindlessly posting little updates throughout the day just for the sake of posting updates, people should save it for when they actually have something to say.

Forums solve the posting part of Facebook, but don't solve the other, even more important part - the reading part.

I derive more value from reading what my friends post, then I do from posting myself. The UX for me getting this information through forums/self-hosted blogging is horrendous (And my aunt is not going to figure out how to self-host her own blog, either.)

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#104
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives. What is a quality alternative to Facebook? Diaspora was DOA, Mastodon is a cesspit, Twitter is nothing like Facebook, and G+ is long-dead.

> Mastodon is a cesspit Explain what you mean.

It's full of instances with definitely illegal, and possibly borderline-illegal content, and even worse - spam. You have to extensively, and aggressively blacklist, to avoid getting flooded in this crap. (And unless you want to wade knee-deep through that dreck, what you do, is to just copy & paste a blacklist some other poor bastard curated. I'm sure there's no vector for abuse, or censorship there...)

Mastodon also fails to solve the harassment problem. Facebook and Twitter do a piss-poor job of it, but Mastodon takes it to another level.

> The attack vector looks like this: a group of motivated harassers chooses a target somewhere in the fediverse. Every time that person posts, they immediately respond, maybe with something clever like “fuck you” or “log off.” So from the target’s point of view, every time they post something, even something innocuous like a painting or a photo of their dog, they immediately get a dozen comments saying “fuck you” or “go away” or “you’re not welcome here” or whatever. This makes it essentially impossible for them to use the social media platform.

> The second part of the attack is that, when the target posts something, harassers from across the fediverse click the “report” button and send a report to their local moderators as well as the moderator of the target’s instance. This overwhelms both the local moderators and (especially) the remote moderator. In mastodon.cloud’s case, it appears the moderator got 60 reports overnight, which was so much trouble that they decided to evict Wil Wheaton from the instance rather than deal with the deluge. [1]

The problem is that Mastodon conflates identity, and community. You will get moderated by third parties for belonging in a particular community, if that community is poorly moderated. Because the definition of poorly moderated is universal, you get a balkanized, political nightmare, where half the toots half the world sends are unreadable to the other half, even if the sender is not personally violating any rules of either community.

For a social network in 2019, this is unacceptable.

Oh, and if you're one of those people who cares about privacy, the only reason Cambridge Analytica, and its ilk aren't harvesting data from Mastodon, is because it's irrelevant. Yes, you can have private conversations with a particular group of users on it, without leaking data. Guess what? You can do that through e-mail, too. As soon as your toots are public, they can be scraped, your social graph can be re-constructed, packaged, and sold to the highest bidders.

[1] https://nolanlawson.com/2018/08/31/mastodon-and-the-challeng...

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17801404/mastodon-harassm...

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#105
post #23

>without Google Services and the Google Play Store, it’s a brick. They’ve mastered separation of the strategic openness of Android with the accompanying strategic closed-ness of everything that runs on it and makes it actually worth something. It's scary how true this is. Especially how it's only obvious in hindsight (to me at least). Yet clearly this was orchestrated. In both Chrome & Androids case it's the non-free…

Amazon's anti-trust paradox by Lina Khan hit the nail on the head a few years ago. When anti-trust moved towards the chicago school logic of judging merely based on price rather than taking market structure and power into account, we really screwed ourselves over. We've really only got ourselves to blame for elevating consumer satisfaction above all else and losing sight of the long term.

Yes, the original definition of monopoly that created the Sherman act was all about control of the supply chain. In the late 1800s, the railroads pretty much controlled everything from the coal mine to the hotels at every station. Completed control of the supply chain, this is what Google, Facebook and Amazon are doing right now on the internet. A monopoly isn't about consumer it's about market control. We need to move off the "harm to the consumer" metric as it is in this case too slow to identify the problem.

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#106
post #7

I don't faintly see the logic in this! The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact: 1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow 2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sen…

Its seems people are more willing to give up freedom for privacy.

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#107

The main problem I have with the predominant discussions around antitrust in contemporary internet software is that they largely ignore one quality that truly makes something a monopoply. That is, truly onerous monopolies don't just own a vast majority of some market share. They hamper the ability to switch to another product. Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discus…

I think it is prudent if we are constantly vigilant and detect monopolistic behaviors ASAP. Why wait till the entity truly becomes a monopoly and has enough power to topple governments?

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#108

The main problem I have with the predominant discussions around antitrust in contemporary internet software is that they largely ignore one quality that truly makes something a monopoply. That is, truly onerous monopolies don't just own a vast majority of some market share. They hamper the ability to switch to another product. Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discus…

I’ve been trying to switch off of chrome/search/gmail/AdWords for a few years now and it’s not easy. And I stand up servers and write scripts.

Gmail doesn’t conform to email standards and eats random emails. Chrome ignores DNT and other things. Search pushes chrome, etc.

It’s a soft lock in compared to Microsoft’s 90s “bundle IE or we break you” deals with PC manufacturers, but it’s definitely not easy to move away from them. And this makes all the other anti-competitive things compoundedly bad.

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#109
Couple of simple but perhaps naive questions:

Can Microsoft pay Google to have it recommend Edge on the Google search homepage?

Should Chrome, rather than have Google.com as the default homepage, offer a list of Search engines for the user to choose from?

Should Chrome be the default browser on Android or should the user choose from a list?

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#110
I had the same impression as the author. Google was tiptoeing up to the line of antitrust scrutiny with its search dominance (95%), the Google Play Store tax, and Youtube demonetizations, but when I saw it was banning ad blockers on Chrome, I said, that's it. This is such an obvious exploitation of market dominance that it really can't be ignored. You could explain the business logic to a ten year old. It's not an accident that Microsoft's antitrust problems started with browsers too. One of the funny things though is that ad blockers are becoming increasingly useless. Nearly every site now makes you deactivate the blocker so it's now more trouble than it's worth.
Post reply on HN