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

U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 452 posts

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#251

Post by pyrophane »

> Despite their ire, most Republicans have not backed the report's proposed changes in antitrust law but instead discussed stripping social media companies of legal protections they are accorded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law gives companies immunity over content posted on their sites by users.

Most of what I have heard Republicans focusing on has been "anti-Conservative bias" in social media platform, but I don't understand how limiting Section 230 protections would address that. Is the idea that any proposals would require moderation practices that follow certain standards set out to avoid "political bias?" I can't understand this push as anything other than a punitive measure to hurt tech companies.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#252

Post by bobthepanda »

pyrophane wrote: post #251

> Despite their ire, most Republicans have not backed the report's proposed changes in antitrust law but instead discussed stripping social media companies of legal protections they are accorded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law gives companies immunity over content posted on their sites by users. Most of what I have heard Republicans focusing on has been "anti-Conservative bias" in social…

Depending on what happens the net outcome of repealing 230 might actually hurt conservatism on online platforms, since right now Twitter, Youtube, Facebook et al are not party to things like the billion dollar Dominion lawsuit against Fox News and Newsmax.

Those news networks have deplatformed Mike Lindell because him actively spewing conspiracy theories on the Dominion voting machines undermines their defense in that lawsuit.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#253

Post by Jasper_ »

capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different?

What happened was that the DOJ did everything they could to get Microsoft broken up. They got pretty much the entire country on their side, and during the trials they extracted some hilarious quotes from Microsoft and Bill Gates, like arguing about the definition of the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" email. Details emerged about their "Embrace-Extend-Extinguish" policy and their plans to try and bulldoze the free software movement.

Popular perception of Bill Gates and Microsoft at that time sunk to an all-time low [0], picturing Gates as a greedy global capitalist, and Microsoft as a cartoonishly evil company. There was no small fix, the only option left was to to shatter Microsoft into multiple pieces, the way Bell Labs had gone. That's what the final ruling said.

Then George W. Bush comes in, clears out basically the entirety of the DOJ, guts them to a fifth of their size, and tells them "never do that again". The case then went to appeal, where it was reduced from a mandatory break-up to a small fine.

The DOJ never went after big tech again. Bill Gates resigned as CEO, and decided to go into philanthropy to clear their image, like many capitalists do.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#254

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

danShumway wrote: post #219
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me stupid, but what exists on android that users on iOS are begging for that only exists on android because of the "freedom" of the platform. I'd like to take a moment to say that android is just handicapped because I can't run a different OS, or screw around in the OS and change things to my whims. But no ones talking about that, why not?

Depending on your interests, that could be anything from: Fortnite, Tasker[0], NewPipe, Ublock Origin[1], Syncthing, xCloud and GeForce Now (until pretty recently[2]), RetroArch, the Dolphin emulator (as of iOS 14.4), and the most recent addition, NSFW Discord servers. > android is just handicapped because I can't run a different OS, or screw around in the OS and change things to my whims You totally can. I've been r…

I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform through alternative means. However, epic seems to be dominating the discussion and they are a bad actor acting in bad faith who peddle digital crack to children fleecing their parents. If we can disambiguate between useful apps, or apps that aren't designed to vacuum money out of children and the flaws with apples model that'd be great.

To say that you can just install lineage is disingenuous. I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs at launch so my argument stands against these phone manufacturers as much as they do against Apple.

Simply, my perspective is that people are going too hard on apple and not hard enough on Google. They both need to be broken up and forced to allow more programs on the products they sell. Epic is tainting the argument and trying to disingenuously spin their self interests as a benefit for consumers.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#255

Post by pydry »

insert_coin wrote: post #210
Renaud wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How does Amazon harm consumers? I mean precisely, how? but burying alternatives, they basically drive smaller product competitors away, reducing their sales and their ability to grow and innovate. Amazon has been blatantly copying products that other brand sold, and made them cheaper. Great for consumers if the only thing you care about it price. Because the game is getting rigged and Amazon products will always be…

The same things were said against Walmart, the exact same arguments word for word. And yet we saw the rise of independent stores, gentrification, Whole Foods, the rise of e-commerce, the rise of etsy, amazon, ali, ebay, the rise of the Apple Store, the rise of... And then we saw an explosion of "third party" brands. Millions and millions of alternatives flooded the market despite Walmart "undercutting everyone of the…

>The same things were said against Walmart, the exact same arguments word for word.

And?

>And yet we saw the rise of independent stores, gentrification, Whole Foods, the rise of e-commerce, the rise of etsy, amazon, ali, ebay, the rise of the Apple Store

So... Walmart was outcompeted by the Apple Store?

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#256

Post by pydry »

skystarman wrote: post #153
IgorPartola wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://gizmodo.com/amazon-reportedly-pressures-small-busine... Amazon Reportedly Pressures Small Businesses with Retaliation if They Don't Hand Over User Data

Again, how does this harm consumers?

Amazon squashes competitors and raises prices or reduces quality/costs safe in the knowledge that consumers have few alternatives.

It's weird asking "how does killing off the competition hurt consumers?" when literally all economic growth depends upon it.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#257

Post by laurent92 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #11
capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> How can Amazon be allowed to sell competing products in their own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace? They should have been forced to divide their busin Depends on how you define “marketplace”. Costco/Walmart/Best Buy/Target/Home Depot/Lowe’s/grocery stores all sell their own brands next to competing brands in their stores. Is their one store the marketplace? It takes considerably more effort to go t…

Should Costco/Walmart be allowed to sell products along competing ones in their own marketplace? No! Of course!

I’d like to see how well they would perform on Target/Best Buy shelves, they probably wouldn’t sell at all. Therefore the only origin for their success is an abuse of marketplace ownership, and it has distorted the market, and therefore has harmed consumers by simply reducing quality brand’s ability to scale, by imposing higher shelf costs for the same brand exposure, and therefore fewer sales.

Although it’s not a monopoly — and another law should be drafted against competing on a marketplace you own.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#258

Post by edgyquant »

abduhl wrote: post #176
ohazi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible for a monopolist to have a great product that allows people to do amazing things that were never previously possible and still be harming the consumer. Microsoft had the leading desktop operating system in the 90s that allowed millions of ordinary people to start using computers for the first time, yet their browser bundling was considered problematic. Bell telephone allowed you to talk to people across…

Let's be clear about something misunderstood about Microsoft: Microsoft won that litigation in America, which is the jurisdiction we're talking about. Framing Microsoft's browser bundling as being "considered" problematic is the same as framing someone who was acquitted as being "considered" a criminal. The Microsoft approach remains an acceptable practice in law and is one of the principle points of the Apple v. Epi…

>Microsoft won that litigation in America

No they didn’t?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

> the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the district court's judgments.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#259

Post by bradlys »

shockeychap wrote: post #233
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Congressional term limits would be one of the easiest fixes for the current state of affairs. Overturning Citizens United and repealing the 17th would be great steps too. However, I think we should pay Congress people at least $1M/yr. Pay them like Fortune 100 CEO's. Make it so they don't even CARE about playing games with insider trading. If we want to run this capitalist country like the capitalists we thin…

The tone of this is a little hard to read, so forgive me if I've misread anything. I mostly agree with the other changes, except for increasing pay as a means of eliminating the motivation to play games. If there's one thing we've seen play out over and over, it's that excesses and greed just beget more greed. Look at the number of executives, financial managers, and politicians who already had vast wealth yet STILL…

The people you want running the country aren’t likely people who are willing to get paid minimum wage too.

You want the best? Usually have to pay more. People in congress are barely paid anything as far as the private market goes. (<$200k/yr and that’s while having to live in two places and frequently travel between them) Considering how many have law degrees and other professional degrees, being a congress person certainly is a step down in terms of certain income. They just make up for it with should be illegal forms of market manipulation. (And other things)

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#260

Post by kaiju0 »

pyrophane wrote: post #251

> Despite their ire, most Republicans have not backed the report's proposed changes in antitrust law but instead discussed stripping social media companies of legal protections they are accorded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law gives companies immunity over content posted on their sites by users. Most of what I have heard Republicans focusing on has been "anti-Conservative bias" in social…

They wanted to hold speech to account for things they didn't like. Right now they can't.
Post reply on HN