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

US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 236 posts

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#191

Post by immibis »

refurb wrote: post #183
kmeisthax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the charge of just wanting to break up big companies because they're big, I plead not guilty on the virtue of this not being a crime. The whole point of breaking up large companies is because their size renders them unaccountable quazi-governments. To properly regulate them requires making the government even bigger with ever-more-complicated regulatory apparatus, compliance departments, administrative rulemaking,…

The whole point of breaking up large companies is because their size renders them unaccountable quazi-governments. Unaccountable to who? I can think of plenty “almost monopolies” that no longer exist or are former shells which would infer they were accountable - at least to the customer. But the more important question is - how big is too big? Is it the same for every company? If not, who decides? How do you measure…

That's how a lot of laws work. There's always an element of subjectivity. Is that guy a murderer? Well, did he intend to kill the victim or was it an accident? The court is supposed to decide whether he intended to, using the available facts, but nobody involved can read minds so it's really a guess.

If you didn't want to be convicted of murder, you wouldn't walk right up to the line of what constitutes murder. You'd stay far away from that line on the legal side. Same for companies, if the system is doing its job.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#192

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

hnben wrote: post #184
hammock wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every FT article is paywalled

iirc they are soft-walled, or at least they were the last time i checked, about a year ago. I forgot how exactly you could bypass the wall, i think something with cookies and private browsing, and ip-addresses.

Or you could just pay for it. It's expensive but totally worth it (IME, obviously).

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#193

Post by oblio »

defrost wrote: post #164
wnc3141 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed two things about most news. One they never provide sources. Not just their sources but sources behind figures or statements of truth. Two it's hard to find articles that highlight different points than the leading article on the topic.

Good news reporting is an expensive and dying craft. These days most articles have one of two sources: * rewritten from a single prime news reporting source that did the hard yards, * copied near verbatim from an official Press Release and|or Advertorial Press Material. The second is the real bane of modern "news" sourcing - eg: straight up disguised advertising- a mega shopping chain pays a network to insert "news"…

I appreciate your optimism but I think you got the order wrong.

I'm fairly sure that the #1 source of news articles, social media posts, etc, probably by far is "native advertising" aka hidden advertising (this is actually illegal in some countries) aka PR articles posted as if from the news source.

https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#195

Post by defrost »

oblio wrote: post #193
defrost wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good news reporting is an expensive and dying craft. These days most articles have one of two sources: * rewritten from a single prime news reporting source that did the hard yards, * copied near verbatim from an official Press Release and|or Advertorial Press Material. The second is the real bane of modern "news" sourcing - eg: straight up disguised advertising- a mega shopping chain pays a network to insert "news"…

I appreciate your optimism but I think you got the order wrong. I'm fairly sure that the #1 source of news articles, social media posts, etc, probably by far is "native advertising" aka hidden advertising (this is actually illegal in some countries) aka PR articles posted as if from the news source. https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

> but you I think you got the order wrong.

Other than the fact that text is sequential I imposed no ranking, these are the two major sources.

> "native advertising" aka hidden advertising

aka submarine news, aka Advertorial Press Material (as I called it above)

    Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to.
This is what I was talking about, perhaps we have differing nomenclature due to differing countries of origin or somesuch but it's the same thing; "news" sourced from preprepared press releases issued by vested interests - either advertisers and|or PR think tanks, etc.

Either way it's "free" professionally prepared copy that costs nothing in paid reporter time and sometimes comes with a carrot (paid advertisement inches), sometimes with a stick (we're thinking of withdrawing | changing contracts, but we have this copy we'd like to see run).

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#196

Post by lazide »

braiamp wrote: post #23
Workaccount2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in violation of the sacred law of the attention economy: Never link outside your garden.

For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.

They aren’t there to provide information, they are there to trap/collect eyeballs.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#197

Post by oblio »

Loughla wrote: post #130
the_gorilla wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's part of an antitrust case, but I am tired of seeing every item being sold from 200 chinese companies with randomly generated names and fake/bought reviews. Walmart has started to do something similar with their online store. I'll use their words. > It's easy to sell online with Walmart.com. Partner with the largest multi-channel retailer and put your products in front of millions of Walmart shopper…

>I generally try to buy from companies directly This is the secret today. Find the product you want, buy straight from that company. Anymore the storefronts are all uniform and shipping (which used to be Amazon's advantage) is the same. The days of massive online retailers dominating is over at my house. I just wish more people would figure that out.

How does it work with refunds and returns?

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#198

Post by zizee »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #131
scohesc wrote: post #4

I hope they include Amazon's practice of taking popular products on their storefront, making generic "Amazon Basics" versions, and selling them to undercut the popular options. Simultaneously owning a marketplace, approving who can and can't sell products on it, and then putting your own products on it to undercut other sellers is so scummy and muck rake-y. I hope they also include Amazon allowing thousands of Chines…

Idk how you fix that without effecting store brands at grocery stores. And I think store brands are pretty mostly a win for the consumer (this is important for any monopoly case).

Do I understand that you like/appreciate grocery store brands, but dislike Amazon's store brand? If so, what is the distinction you see between the two?

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#199

Post by refurb »

immibis wrote: post #191
refurb wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of breaking up large companies is because their size renders them unaccountable quazi-governments. Unaccountable to who? I can think of plenty “almost monopolies” that no longer exist or are former shells which would infer they were accountable - at least to the customer. But the more important question is - how big is too big? Is it the same for every company? If not, who decides? How do you measure…

That's how a lot of laws work. There's always an element of subjectivity. Is that guy a murderer? Well, did he intend to kill the victim or was it an accident? The court is supposed to decide whether he intended to, using the available facts, but nobody involved can read minds so it's really a guess. If you didn't want to be convicted of murder, you wouldn't walk right up to the line of what constitutes murder. You'd…

Those are the facts of the case. Whether a murder occurred at all is rarely subjective.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#200

Post by whoitwas »

LorenDB wrote: post #6

I don't care who wins the election next month, Lina Khan needs to be kept as FTC chair. The FTC has been on a roll the past while.

RIP. I don't think project 2025 has plans to gut the FTC, just most other federal agencies. It obviously matters a ton who wins, but the outcome may likely be the same regardless.
Post reply on HN