Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon • Hacker News Board

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#371

Post by f-securus » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #338

streblo wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The trend in broadband has been more competition. In the past decade I've lived in three different cities, and in each one Comcast was the only provider available. Do we really not think Comcast has a monopoly?

Google has 90% search market share--Comcast doesn't have that even in areas where it is the sole high-speed wired provider (because DSL and cellular are viable alternatives for a significant part of the population). And over large swaths of its service area it isn't the only high-speed wired option. I don't know where you're located, but I've lived in Chicago, Atlanta, DC, Baltimore, Annapolis, New York, and Philadel…

It isn't about market share. It is about consumer choice. Access to google alternatives are available to everyone. Many people don't have a reasonable choice when it comes to broadband.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#372

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #355

psadauskas wrote: post #211

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies ? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for…

> However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. An antitrust breakup of Comcast would be one or both of: 1. splitting off different lines of business, such as the content production parts from the physical cable service part, or 2. splitting them into different companies geographically. Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options.

> Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options.

The first one works if you do it properly. One of the lines of business just operates the physical infrastructure. It not only doesn't provide video service, it doesn't even provide internet service -- the end user is never their customer, their only customers are third party ISPs, who all get the same terms.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#373

Post by giggles_giggles » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

psadauskas wrote: post #358

will_brown wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google... Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. The bulk of Google’s lobbying expenditure was for immigration, tax reform and antitrust. I’d say Google’s far better “at playing the game” after all no one is randomly sticking up for Comcast.

You're right, I should have checked the facts before speculating on which company spent more on lobbying. However, the things they are lobbying for/against also matter. As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides. From https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ > Not only was Google the pro-net neutrality organization…

>As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides

This isn't as uncontroversial of an opinion as it might appear to be in a place like HN. What you're admitting here basically is that you think Comcast should be broken up because they lobby for things you don't like, but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#374

Post by kevinmchugh » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #354

kevinmchugh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example. What does this mean? Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, et al already have their constitutionally protected speech, except for where their roles as executives at public companies restrict them. If they find those restrictions onerous they can leave their roles.

If Twitter decides tomorrow to ban the right-wing from their platform. They absolutely legally can. If you watch the recent Joe Rogan video with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey. They didn't realize they were slowly banning the right-wing and allowing left-wing terrorists to stay on Twitter. They absolutely didn't realize they were doing this and they are going to look at fixing this. The government however could come in and…

The company twitter has set its terms of service. That is speech. What you're suggesting is eliminating the corporation's ability to do speak in that manner.

Do you believe the US government has the ability to simply prohibit speech by corporate entities? Is it in accordance with free speech principles for a federal government to prohibit certain types of speech?

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#375

Post by jonny_eh » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #299

skrebbel wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this work in practice though? Eg Amazon. Bezos is a major shareholder. Imagine splitting AWS from the retail arm, which I guess would be a sensible split point. If Bezos controls both, then what would really change? I'm not critical to the idea nor supportive - I'm just curious to learn more.

That was the case when Standard Oil was broken up and it's not a problem. The retail arm becomes free to get their cloud computing needs from others -- say Azure or Google. Bezos can't force them to get a worse deal at AWS simply because he owns the AWS. A lot of the arguments for breaking up companies come from this. It can make the components more efficient once they're freed from the shackles of being locked in. L…

Except the Standard Oil break-up was considered a failure. The new companies all reported back to Rockefeller.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/anti...

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#376

Post by jamie_ca » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #355

psadauskas wrote: post #211

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies ? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for…

> However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. An antitrust breakup of Comcast would be one or both of: 1. splitting off different lines of business, such as the content production parts from the physical cable service part, or 2. splitting them into different companies geographically. Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options.

More effective than breaking them up would be imposing regulation. Force the incumbents to allow 3rd parties to use their infrastructure at a regulated wholesale rate, and then compete on service.

In Canada, there's a bunch of smaller cable resellers. For instance, Shaw does cable/phone/tv and also has some wifi infrastructure deals with various commercial businesses, and provides "Shaw Go Wifi" access to internet subscribers.

In my local area, we also have LightSpeed which resells access to Shaw for a cheaper rate, but you need to buy your own modem, and there's no wifi access around town. Trade-offs, and a slightly more healthy marketplace.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#377

Post by fedorareis » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

twtw wrote: post #255

psadauskas wrote: post #211

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies ? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for…

> because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than google Is that true? [1] indicates Google spent more than Comcast in lobbying in q1 2015. I have no idea how this varies quarter by quarter and since 2015, but Google spends a lot lobbying. I would not be surprised if that extends to campaign contributions as well. Google donates a ton of money to a ton of politicians. [1] https://www.theguardian.…

While I don’t know what Google spent their money lobbying for, so I’m not going to pick a side in my comment. I’d say the more important thing isn’t who spent the most money but what they spent it on. If for example Google spent some of that money fighting for Net Neutrality then that is better in my mind then Comcast spending most of their money fighting against it. I’m not saying this is the case or that Google has lobbied for good things. But knowing generally what they lobbied for would be a more useful piece of information.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#378

Post by feyman_r » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #159

will_brown wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think she realizes that splitting up amazon and amazon basics will do little to nothing. I think amazon : amazon basics is a great example of antitrust/unfair monopoly the same as google search : almost all consumer facing google products. Both amazon and google search are the dominate online market leaders in their respective categories. In amazons case they unfairly use their market position to begin offer…

> In amazons case they unfairly use their market position to begin offering amazon private label products on their platform. They know what users are looking for, spend the most on, and they can give their own products dominate positions in the UI. 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue is not the pr…

> How is that different than a department store?

I think it is different. When a department store buys a third-party product, it pays for it and the Store bears the risk of the item not selling. If Macy's decides to make their own brand, they did so by transferring risk from manufacturer to themselves in the beginning; if a product didn't sell enough, they had stake in it. There are some successes (store-brands) and some failures (brands they bought, never worked)

In the Amazon Basics case, AMZN doesn't own inventory for the product at all. All the risk is to be borne by the 3rd party manufacturer. When Amazon looks at its data and sees a product succeeding, it creates a Basics product with no risk - it knows this thing sells. There is no way Amazon can 'fail' per se.

This essentially is the difference. Any manufacturer is likely scared of success on the Amazon Marketplace. If too successful, it can be Amazon-Basic'ed.

> The consumer (along with Amazon) is a beneficiary here. The losers are brands trying to sell commodity items at a markup.

I think in the short-term for that product - yes, the consumer finds a cheaper product, but Amazon will always have an economies-of-scale advantage.

However, long-term, I think innovators will not know if making a highly successful product (which is always difficult to sell cheap because scale isn't achieved) is worth it.

I found this episode from Planet Money pretty informative: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/anti...

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#379

Post by emn13 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #270

bloorp wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter-argument is that even someone like you who doesn't use facebook, amazon, and google is still irrevocably affected by their power and behaviors. You seem to think you've escaped them, but you surely have a Shadow Profile in facebook, you browse websites that show you AdSense ads (google), and oh yeah, your civic institutions are manipulable via popular opinion on facebook. Hmmm, you do have a strong point ab…

And how would breaking them up prevent any of that? Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on data collection, Google doesn't have a monopoly on display advertising, and Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on peer pressure.

The value and impact on commercialized surveillance depend critically on the ability to generate large databases, both on the any specific indivual, and on the the number of individuals thus affected. Breaking up dataminers probably would help.

And if we take a step back: this isn't necessarily only about privacy, but about capitalism and competition. Data-miner customers, and data-miner subjects might both get a better deal if there were competition between the middle men, at least more than now.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#380

Post by wvenable » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #235

JackFr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In amazons case they unfairly use their market position to begin offering amazon private label products on their platform. They know what users are looking for, spend the most on, and they can give their own products dominate positions in the UI. 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue is not the pr…

> 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue is not the practice itself, but rather that the digital marketplace makes it easier and more efficient. The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power. > 2) The consumer (along with Amazon) is a beneficiary here. The losers are brands trying to sell…

> The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power.

I don't see Amazon as being particularly more of a monopoly than Walmart. If Amazon was a traditional brick and mortar business, would we even be having this conversation?