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

351–360 of 452 posts

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

#351

Post by root_axis »

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…

One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is bring big tech business operations to a screeching halt. Republicans are betting on the fact that big tech would be willing to do anything to avoid that outcome.

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

#353

Post by dragonwriter »

root_axis wrote: post #351
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…

One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is bring big tech business operations to a screeching halt. Republicans are betting on the fact that big tech would be willing to do anything to avoid that outcome.

> One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is bring big tech business operations to a screeching halt.

Not all big tech business, just the no-prior-review dissemination of user-generated content.

EDIT: At least, without some kind of financial protection against publication liability, such as the user providing indemnification with proof of adequate liability coverage. So, things like say Github Enterprise would still exist but probably be more costly once all associated costs are take into account, but free-of-charge individual accounts would either not continue or, if MS could subsidize them from Enterprise profits and saw value in having them, they’d be much more aggressively scanned for “bad” content and summarily deleted if there were any signs detected. And the same kind of calculus would apply all over the net.

It would definitely narrow the voices that have reach, both in number and ideological distribution.

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

#354

Post by Nasrudith »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #322
skystarman wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, how does this harm consumers?

By destroying competing businesses and reducing consumer choice, isnt it obvious?

But just offering better service for a lower price destroys competiting businesses. There is a reason competitor harm wasn't the standard for anti-trust despite it being about competition between companies.

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

#355

Post by root_axis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #353
root_axis wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is bring big tech business operations to a screeching halt. Republicans are betting on the fact that big tech would be willing to do anything to avoid that outcome.

> One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is bring big tech business operations to a screeching halt. Not all big tech business, just the no-prior-review dissemination of user-generated content. EDIT : At least, without some kind of financial protection against publication liability, such as the user providing indemnification with proof of adequate liability coverage. So, things like say Github Enterprise…

You're right, I should have said "social media" instead of "big tech".

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

#356

Post by notyourwork »

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 is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different?

How can Microsoft control what games you play on Xbox or how can Nintendo control what games you play on switch?

Why are grocery stores allowed to sell private brand products that compete?

I'm worried we don't quite have a good grip on how to solve this problem.

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

#357

Post by [deleted] »

swebs wrote: post #27
LatteLazy wrote: post #10

A lot of this just looks like punishing success to me. Or rather success combined with a lack of political involvement aka donation. If it cares about monopolies go look at comcast or Disney or big chunks of agriculture or Boeing etc. If the house really cares about privacy, it should look at the patriot act. If it cares about workers, go look at Walmart.

What market is Disney a monopoly in?

[deleted]

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

#358

Post by basch »

laurent92 wrote: post #257
lotsofpulp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 scal…

>I’d like to see how well they would perform on Target/Best Buy shelves

I don't understand that comparison at all. Do you know what percent of the Target floorspace is Target owned brands? Or Ikea?

Imagine being a store that sells its own product, AND wants to augment their own product with some third party products. Like a sweatshirt company that also throws sunglasses on a rack. They arent really "making" either of these things. In one case they are throwing some branding over a product and having having it manufactured by contract. The other they buy generic wholesale. Because they want to sell both branded and unbranded goods they shouldnt exist? That would shut down nearly every retail business in the country overnight.

Where has the idea of a neutral marketplace ever been realized in brick and mortar America?

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

#359

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

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 grocery stores be allowed to own food brands when they're also marketplaces! How can Aldi be allowed to sell competing products in their own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace?
Post reply on HN