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

Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 735 posts

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#401

Post by mal10c »

I ran across two quotes by Warren that caught my attention:

> "unwind tech mergers that illegally undermine competition"

> "I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules"

The word "illegally" in the first quote really set off my alarm bells. What have large companies like Amazon, Google, FB, etc. done that is considered illegal in this regard?

The "by the rules" in the second quote is confusing too. What does that mean? Which rules are being broken?

The way I see it: Isn't it the goal of entrepreneurs to be as successful as possible? Let's say I found a way to grow a business to that of the size of some of the bigger ones (which would be awesome). To grow a business that big, consumers obviously like what I'm selling/producing. I get the impression that Warren is saying she doesn't like big businesses because they snuff out the little ones. And maybe that's true, but why is that a concern of the government? There's nothing stopping a smaller company (or even an individual) from coming up with a really good idea and trying that idea out in something like his garage, and then reshaping the next generation... kinda like Amazon did in comparison to Sears. Or Microsoft did with IBM.

I'm sure there's going to be plenty of disagreements on my stance, but I guess I'm just not seeing this problem in the same light as Warren.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#402

Post by harrumph »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #206
devoply wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also see Elizabeth Warren has created a set of powerful enemies way too early that will do much to stop her from becoming America's first woman president. If you wanna do something like this wait until you are in office. These are not issues that your average American cares about.

Unfortunately I agree. Since Silicon Valley leans left so heavily this is the sort of thing you sit on until much later in the process. I personally feel that Google, Facebook, et al are too big and powerful now, this is going to immediately set those companies against her so she's kneecapping her campaign before it even gets started.

> Since Silicon Valley leans left so heavily

I really believe it doesn't. No serious concentration of wealth ever does. Yes, personal attitudes in SV are often liberal, but the economic outlook most common in the place is akin to Andrew Carnegie with a git repo. It's this economic outlook where her proposal targets.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#403

Post by 0815test »

rayiner wrote: post #395
f-securus wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Economists traditionally analyze market concentration in terms of market share, not the mere existence of choice. I will point out that you felt the need to qualify "choice" with "reasonable"--because Comcast competes with DSL and cellular almost everywhere. But that some qualifier applies to search. Even in markets where Comcast is the only cable provider, it usually doesn't have anything close to 90% market share,…

> Economists traditionally analyze market concentration in terms of market share, not the mere existence of choice.

Actually, many economists - and perhaps most of them - argue that what's fundamental to monopolization concerns is the presence of undue barriers to entry that make the market non-contestable. "Market share" and "choice" are not helpful on their own, because a big market share could be entirely due to the incumbent pursuing efficiency and the consumer's best interests, so as to keep themselves ahead of any possible competitors. But this is a benign dynamic that will be quickly corrected should the incumbent fall behind, as competitors would quickly enter the market.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#404

Post by metamet »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #397
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.

Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. Probably because they saw what happened when Microsoft tried to ignore Washington, DC. altogether. Can you blame Google for realizing that they couldn't just turn their backs on the game?

It's an unfortunate side effect of the current system. Either no one should be able to influence legislation, or you're going to be negatively impacted by choosing not to.

That said, I'm in favor of the former. Citizens United has been a pox on representatives representing their constituents, which has made lobbying all the more effective and easy.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#405

Post by rayiner »

fedorareis wrote: post #368
rayiner wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in some areas the lack of ISP competition is particularly acute. But on the flip side, lack of competition in tech is a nationwide problem. I’ve got gigabit through both Verizon and Comcast at my house. It’s much easier for me to switch between the two than for me to switch off gmail (which has years of my emails), or to switch off Facebook (which all my aunts and uncles use). As to cellular—it’s a viable alter…

You are fortunate to be in one of the few areas where there is true ISP competition. For most of the country there is none. Yes, it may be hard to move off of gmail but it isn’t impossible unlike changing high speed internet providers for most of the country. You can leave Facebook and communicate in other ways. I’m sure your aunts and uncles have phones so you could text or call them. I don’t see how splitting up Ap…

> You are fortunate to be in one of the few areas where there is true ISP competition. For most of the country there is none.

That's not true, and I'm not sure where people get that idea. Slightly over half the country has two or more wired choices at 25 mbps, and that's as of a few years ago.

And if you're saying that texting my aunt in Bangladesh is a viable alternative to sharing pictures of my kids on Facebook, then it makes no sense to discount satellite, DSL, and cellular as viable alternatives to Comcast. (And indeed they are for many people--just over half the households in Comcast's footprint actually subscribe to its service.)

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#406

Post by jakelazaroff »

wolco wrote: post #365
jakelazaroff wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you avoid using services that run on AWS, though? Or avoid sites that advertise and get analytics from Google? These companies are so dangerous not only because of their consumer-facing services, but the fact that they've made themselves an integral part of our online infrastructure.

When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it. That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option.

> When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it.

Not really — my option is basically "indirectly support AWS" or "forego large swaths of the Internet." Site owners have to choose between directly supporting AWS, indirectly supporting AWS via intermediary services that use it, or giving up the economies of scale that AWS's dominance allows.

> That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option.

This is not analogous. AWS is a company. React is an open source project.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#408

Post by CamperBob2 »

CPLX wrote: post #193
thr_w wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This avoids the common argument against socialism removing incentives to success, while still providing social safety nets. Allow people to succeed, but when they do, tax them and regulate them to benefit the less fortunate members of society. The rich got rich in part because of the protections and services afforded them by our modern society. In having reaped a greater share of benefit, why should they not…

The argument that there won't be incentives for success is and has always been ludicrous. It's not based in any kind of empirical reality, just on an emotional theory that people won't work if you tax them more, and an Ayn Rand novel or two. The reality is that people compete for status, success, money, and power, within the framework they are given. I mean we've actually tried this. If you take a group of incredibly…

I mean we've actually tried this. If you take a group of incredibly skilled business people and tax them heavily you don't get some dystopia, you get Switzerland.

And what important/useful companies, tech or otherwise, got their start in Switzerland?

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#409

Post by travisoneill1 »

geofft wrote: post #74
travisoneill1 wrote: post #19

What is the alleged anti-competitive behavior? The article doesn't mention it. It sounds like she is calling for their breakup merely for being big and powerful, and if that were cause enough to break up an entity we would logically start with the government.

There's a difference, at least on paper, between the government and corporations: the government is big and powerful, but (in a republican society) is accountable in some way to the people and society as a whole. Corporations are also big and powerful, and (in a capitalist society) accountable only to a majority of their shareholders. So there's a reason to believe that you cannot have corporations serve the public i…

In theory. But in fact it is the opposite. Companies are accountable to their customers above all else, and the government to its voters. If the IRS makes a mistake with your taxes and Amazon makes a mistake with your order, which of these would scare you more?

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#410

Post by CamperBob2 »

StreamBright wrote: post #215
quadrangle wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think the debate is purely about relative wealth, you are misunderstanding most of it. But even still: relative wealth distribution getting too extremely unequal has negative ramifications for any society, regardless of the absolute wealth. But again: that is NOT the issue in this case. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/anti... for more perspective, a bunch of discussion about antitrust i…

>>> relative wealth distribution getting too extremely unequal has negative ramifications for any society, regardless of the absolute wealth Like what exactly? I do not understand why people are upset over extreme wealth. I think Jeff Bezos deserves to be a billionaire and I would not want to live in a society that does not allow people like him succeed and accumulate this sort of money. The quetion is what happens w…

There's this weird notion that you can improve your lot in life by worrying more about the contents of other peoples' bank accounts than you do your own. I don't get it either.
Post reply on HN