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

171–180 of 335 posts

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

#171

Post by throwaway894345 »

mikkergp wrote: post #161
throwaway894345 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious problem with considering social network platforms as interchangeable competitors is that they... aren't interchangeable at all. A user can't pack up and go to a different platform because their actual social network (i.e., relationships between humans) is only accessible on one platform. For example, my colleagues are on Twitter but not Mastodon. I can't leave Twitter without leaving my social network. Wh…

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.

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

#172

Post by dahfizz »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #143
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…

I was going to reply to the parent that we used to have a word for this, and that word is "monopoly", but apparently we now no longer have that shared definition, probably an intentional confusion bought at great expense by monopolists.

At no point has "monopoly" meant anything other than "A single seller". The confusion comes from people trying to steal that term to refer to "big companies".

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

#173

Post by missedthecue »

sanderjd wrote: post #139
stevetodd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that you are the product and not the customer for these companies. Google’s customers are the advertisers who pay and (I’d argue) those who want to show up in search results. You have to either pay for ads or play their algorithm game to be relevant because of their monopoly position on search. It’s basically the same story for Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.

But this argument still seems to rely on "monopoly position on search", when there are in fact a number of search engines.

And additionally, the switching cost for users to change search engines is literally zero. It takes all of 2 seconds and opening a new tab.

There are no contract cancellations or negotiating or payment loss. It costs zero dollars and zero time. Google owns a huge portion of search simply because they have the best product.

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

#175

Post by AnthonyMouse »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #144
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. None of these things are a natural monopoly. Facebook only stays relevant by buying its competitors. You don't even need to break them up, just disable acquisitions. Then Instagram would be separate, WhatsApp would…

Google isn't primarily a search engine. By revenue they're primarily an ad network. Ad networks naturally form monopolies. Ad matching algorithms can make better matches (more revenue per click and more desirable product for advertisers) the more ad campaigns they have to select from and the more display properties they have to publish ads to. It's a market extremely prone to winner-takes-all. I say this as someone w…

Ad networks don't naturally form monopolies. That's why Google had to buy the other ones. Anything will form a monopoly if you let every company in the industry merge.

Just because something has a network effect doesn't make it a natural monopoly. The network effect means the network may need a minimum size in order to be viable, but that doesn't mean there can't be a dozen competing networks of that size that are all viable.

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

#176

Post by Stupulous »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #115
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The context is dealing with the problem of the existence of a too powerful company. Dealing with a too expensive sandwich requires no laws.

If refusing to work with a company is impossible, it's a monopoly, right? Otherwise, you are free to respond to the too-powerful company the same way you respond to the too-expensive sandwich.

If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has. Illegalizing shadow profiles of non-users would be a good step forward, illegalizing them only for FB-sized companies would be less good.

If a handful of companies are operating as a monopoly, that's already well-defined as an oligopoly.

I think the only other situation where a company can be too powerful is if they get too much power over the regulators. I expect it's rare to get there without becoming a monopoly or oligopoly, but it's probably not impossible.

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

#177

Post by dahfizz »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #132
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 obvious problem with considering social network platforms as interchangeable competitors is that they... aren't interchangeable at all. A user can't pack up and go to a different platform because their actual social network (i.e., relationships between humans) is only accessible on one platform. For example, my colleagues are on Twitter but not Mastodon. I can't leave Twitter without leaving my social network. Wh…

This is a definition that is broad to the point of uselessness.

Regardless of what program I use to communicate with my friends, that program is now a monopoly. Even if I coded up the website myself and my friends and I are the only ones to use it, that website now "owns access" to all my friends. It is absurd to label this website a monopoly.

This is also not actionable. Once my friends and I all decide on a communication platform, that platform is a monopoly and must be broken up (?), by removing some of my friends from the platform (?). In that way, it would literally be impossible for me to have a platform where I can communicate with all my friends, because such a platform would be a monopoly and must be broken up by your definition.

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

#178

Post by jonnycomputer »

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…

Discounting Amazon's grip on the cloud computing sector is a mistake.

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

#179

Post by lotsofpulp »

Stupulous wrote: post #176
lotsofpulp wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is dealing with the problem of the existence of a too powerful company. Dealing with a too expensive sandwich requires no laws.

If refusing to work with a company is impossible, it's a monopoly, right? Otherwise, you are free to respond to the too-powerful company the same way you respond to the too-expensive sandwich. If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has. Illegalizing shadow profiles of non-users would be a good step forward, illegalizing…

>If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has.

I agree, hence my explanation of why there are no laws against "too powerful" companies. It is not an actionable condition.

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

#180

Post by Supermancho »

dahfizz wrote: post #172
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to reply to the parent that we used to have a word for this, and that word is "monopoly", but apparently we now no longer have that shared definition, probably an intentional confusion bought at great expense by monopolists.

At no point has "monopoly" meant anything other than "A single seller". The confusion comes from people trying to steal that term to refer to "big companies".

> The confusion comes from people trying to steal that term to refer to "big companies".

This is an oligopoly. Because companies are arbitrary constructs, it's a defacto monopoly by multiple sellers. The terminology is useful, but not in the sense that it is then end-all of qualification.

Post reply on HN