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

Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

bigtechnology.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 343 posts

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#211

Post by not_exactly__ »

andreilys wrote: post #205
ethbr0 wrote: post #54

I've come around and landed more on the opinion that we're now enabling our jailors. Light tech regulation was exactly the correct approach in the 1990s (and arguably the 2000s). It enabled mind-boggling rapid and stunning innovation. ... However, the massive corporate fortunes built by the winners of those times are now primarily enabling rent seeking. Google and Facebook's other work is interesting in the same way…

IMHO, everyone will be better off if Facebook, Google, and Amazon are shattered into small enough independent pieces that (1) "get bought" is no longer the startup win condition & (2) they have peer level competitors in all markets in which they participate. I’m sure Chinese Tech co’s would absolutely love to have their Western competition knee-capped by their own governments. Will make it a lot easier for them to do…

I think it’s a somewhat false dichotomy that splitting up US big tech makes China big tech win. The reason being that splitting up US big tech allow for more competitive US mid tech to arise that can outcompete China big tech in areas where it matters. I suppose you also want to prevent China Big Tech to throw its money around at Mid Tech the way US big tech did in the last 10-15 years.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#212

Post by ethbr0 »

danShumway wrote: post #165
wintermutestwin wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't we learned that the "break 'em up" fix for monopolies doesn't achieve the desired results? Why not simply get our government to do their jobs and REGULATE away practices that are not in the public's interest?

> Haven't we learned that the "break 'em up" fix for monopolies doesn't achieve the desired results? Breaking up has achieved excellent results before, as far as I can tell. It's not a permanent solution to the problem, but neither is brushing my teeth. It might be OK to have a process that needs to be periodically repeated when companies get out of control. It might even be preferable to large legislative efforts th…

Approached from a novelty perspective, I think the exception is size and profit margin. These companies are simply too big (in terms of cash on hand & ability to generate profits). That's always been the problem with monopolies -- they get there, and then no one can compete.

Which in this case seems a consequence of first mover advantage + capital-light tech scaling (aka large profit margins) + huge total addressable markets.

Compared to Saudi Aramco's total profits -- Apple makes 63%, Microsoft makes 44%, Google makes 39%, Facebook makes 21%, & Amazon makes 13%. [0]

And that's compared to a business that literally pumps money out of the ground.

[0] https://fortune.com/global500/2020/search/?fg500_profits=des...

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#213

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

cwkoss wrote: post #181
bluefirebrand wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook the website and Facebook the advertising giant are kinda different things though. By which I mean that Facebook does not make $trn by supplying likes shares messages and posts.

I find it very curious how facebook's advertisements (especially on instagram) seem to have a lot more products that are cheap commodity Chinese products, whitelabeled by a glitzy 'startup' brand, and add a 500%+ margin. Very often a quick search can find identical items (maybe without a brand label) on Aliexpress for a fraction of the price. Google search and on-site ads can be annoying and of questionable relevance…

The answer's probably a lot simpler than you think. Dropshipping is hot these days for the "I'm an internet entrepreneur" crowd and the "How To Dropship Guides for $19.99" are all pushing Facebook ads and buying from AliExpress. The readers likely don't even know that there are alternatives: they're just following a script.

The rapid churn when people realize it's harder to make money than it seems means that there is always a new set of people pushing whatever crap is hot that week.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#214

Post by N1H1L »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #133
what_ever wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Kirkland is just Costco making a bulk deal with one of the manufacturers and slapping Kirkland brand on it.

It’s the same with the other retailers. They do not own their own factories.

But Amazon Basics doesn't own the factories too - at least not yet.

Same with Trader Joe's

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#215

Post by ethbr0 »

andreilys wrote: post #205
ethbr0 wrote: post #54

I've come around and landed more on the opinion that we're now enabling our jailors. Light tech regulation was exactly the correct approach in the 1990s (and arguably the 2000s). It enabled mind-boggling rapid and stunning innovation. ... However, the massive corporate fortunes built by the winners of those times are now primarily enabling rent seeking. Google and Facebook's other work is interesting in the same way…

IMHO, everyone will be better off if Facebook, Google, and Amazon are shattered into small enough independent pieces that (1) "get bought" is no longer the startup win condition & (2) they have peer level competitors in all markets in which they participate. I’m sure Chinese Tech co’s would absolutely love to have their Western competition knee-capped by their own governments. Will make it a lot easier for them to do…

It's a valid point. Less so specifically to China, and more so generally to all countries with national champions (e.g. South Korea).

In some sense, it's a zero sum game, where if your country don't scale or allow companies to scale, they find the next most favorable country. Or another country's companies succeed because of the additional support provided.

But subsidies and government support have always been the biggest fracas in international economic politics for centuries for the same reason.

To which I'd reiterate not_exactly__'s point: although business-harmful actions look like shooting yourself in the foot, hampering competition and supporting companies for extraneous reasons ultimately makes your economy and your companies less competitive globally.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#216

Post by sjy »

hardtke wrote: post #193
bogwog wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why the DOD/FTC/whatever can't/won't impose specific restrictions on companies in order to correct anti-trust issues? That seems a lot less drastic and risky than a break-up. For example, if Apple is forcing developers to use their payments SDK to collect 30%, why can't a government agency just force them to stop? Maybe there was a long official investigation by antitrust regulators, and that kicked off a lo…

Being large is not illegal. Having a monopoly in a specific product is not illegal. The standard by which the antitrust officials judge companies is whether the company controls a sufficient part of the market such that the consumer is harmed. The problem with the current regulations with respect to Google/Facebook is that their products are "free" to the "consumer," and free can't be harmful (harm is higher prices).…

That’s what Apple says, but isn’t it a bit early to conclude that Epic’s arguments (relevantly, that Apple is illegally monopolising the market for iOS app distribution) are doomed to fail?

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#217

Post by davedx »

ethbr0 wrote: post #215
andreilys wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, everyone will be better off if Facebook, Google, and Amazon are shattered into small enough independent pieces that (1) "get bought" is no longer the startup win condition & (2) they have peer level competitors in all markets in which they participate. I’m sure Chinese Tech co’s would absolutely love to have their Western competition knee-capped by their own governments. Will make it a lot easier for them to do…

It's a valid point. Less so specifically to China, and more so generally to all countries with national champions (e.g. South Korea). In some sense, it's a zero sum game, where if your country don't scale or allow companies to scale, they find the next most favorable country. Or another country's companies succeed because of the additional support provided. But subsidies and government support have always been the bi…

How is it a zero sum game?

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#218

Post by cratermoon »

jimmaswell wrote: post #196
dalbasal wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FB is somewhat of an odd man out... I certainly think reversing acquisitions would be a positive, but... With Bell, standard oil and past monopolies... the goal was to decentralise while keeping oil and telecom viable. We wanted what they made, and didn't want disruptions. Do we want what FB makes? Is it scarce? I feel like we would have a sufficient supply of likes, shares, messages and posts regardless. There doesn…

> Do we want what FB makes? Is it scarce?.. doesn't need to be a $trn company People want a social network that everyone else is on, that works on all their devices, and isn't full of spam bots or bugs. It takes a big company to do this at scale and the network effect makes useful social networks scarce.

> People want a social network

Do they, though?

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#219

Post by danShumway »

andreilys wrote: post #207
danShumway wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't we learned that the "break 'em up" fix for monopolies doesn't achieve the desired results? Breaking up has achieved excellent results before, as far as I can tell. It's not a permanent solution to the problem, but neither is brushing my teeth. It might be OK to have a process that needs to be periodically repeated when companies get out of control. It might even be preferable to large legislative efforts th…

Breaking up has achieved excellent results before, as far as I can tell. Source?

Railways, Bell.

Source: I use the Internet today and can see the effects firsthand, I'm part of an industry that exists pretty much because of that breakup. This stuff is pretty well documented.

Re: Congress is going to throw the kitchen sink at big tech

#220

Post by amadeuspagel »

> D) Force businesses to buy ads to survive

> Text: The bill would make it unlawful to do anything that "conditions access to the covered platform or preferred status on the platform on the purchase or use of other products or services offered by the covered platform operator."

> Analysis: This is very clearly aimed at advertising on Amazon, potentially Google as well, where merchants often must pay to gain visibility in the search results.

Doesn't this basically outlaw ads? Aren't all ads "preferred status on the platform"? If I offer a product on amazon, and there are already hundreds of other people offering the same thing, who already have a lot of sales and reviews, how else should I be able to gain visibility other then by buying an ad?

Post reply on HN