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

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#491

Post by rayiner » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

brmgb wrote: post #470

rayiner wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition. I'm sure if the U.S. government was proposing to sell public bonds to build a…

Search engine and ride-sharing don't seem to be natural monopolies however. Communication infrastructure in most part of the USA clearly is. Still I agree breaking up Comcast is not the solution. You will just end up with smaller more localized monopolies. That's pretty much what happened with Bell after all. The solution would be either nationalizing the infrastructure and leasing it to operators or forcing existing…

It's working terribly in France. France has some of the slowest broadband in the OECD: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... Just 18% of French households have connections faster than 15 mbps, versus 48% of American households.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#492

Post by int_19h » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #467

pitaj wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ma Bell wasn't created naturally at all. It's monopoly status was granted by the federal government. This is fundamentally different from Facebook, Amazon, etc. If anything, the large ISPs like ATT, Verizon, and Spectrum should be looked at, but solving the problems of ISP monopolization will take a lot more than just breaking up territorial monopolies into smaller territorial monopolies.

Why does it matter whether a monopoly is "natural" or not, let alone that the definition of "naturally" is sort of laughable given the legal framework put in place for our government is the economy in the first place? Just as you get a lot of government run monopolies with pure socialism, you get a lot of "market-driven" monopolies with pure capitalism. Both should be broken up.

The point is that they're caused by different processes, and the steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again after you break them up are also very different because of that.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#493

Post by tschellenbach » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

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…

Upvoted, seriously this, all the talk about Google, Amazon, Facebook hides many of the real problems and monopolies. These 3 don't even make it to a top 100 list of problematic companies.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#494

Post by pmart123 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

confounded wrote: post #238

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…

> Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for things that will make my use of the internet objectively worse (NN, SOPA, etc...). Is this true? It depends on your use of the internet and definitions of “worse”, but I know that both Google and Facebook have been strong opponents of state-level Internet privacy legislation. They also spend huge amounts on lobbying,…

IMO, that is not the point. Lobby spending can be more indicative of a looming regulatory threat than to protect monopolies that harm consumers.

I also think that Warren is dead wrong. The internet/FB/GOOGL allow smaller businesses to flourish. 15 years ago, only major brands could afford to advertise or reach an audience, now niche companies can exist with a national or international presence.

If anything, these tech monopolies hurt the previously established, Coke/Kraft/Sears and they hurt VC's who can't find a way to scale a niche brand with smaller TAM's or compete directly with Amazon, etc.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#495

Post by mmmmmmmmm » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

devoply wrote: post #196

oceanstone wrote: post #178

> The key components of the Warren plan include passing legislation that would designate companies with annual global revenue above $25 billion that provide marketplace, exchange, or third-party connectivity as “platform utilities” and prohibit those companies from owning participants on their platforms. As a Googler, speaking for myself, this seems like an interesting idea that could positively impact the tech scene…

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.

The fact that she's a known racist will already stop her from becoming president. That's probably why she's so carefree about making ridiculous, destructive proposals like this. She doesn't care about the presidency; she just wants a platform to spew her vitriol.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#496

Post by int_19h » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #145

sarbaz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also the first idea I've seen that tries to deal with the free speech problem on the internet. A lot of platforms today apply varying amounts of censorship (like youtube's copyright takedown mess), but there isn't really anything we can do because it's a privately owned platform and they can do whatever they want. But when they control such a large amount of mindshare, we end up putting the idea of free speec…

Is this a good idea? Giving "fair time" to not only YouTube malcontents, but also actively bad actors i.e. state funded shills? I don't see how this could be implemented to the best interest of the USA without "censorship" being involved at some point.

As usual, the problem is who gets to decide "the best interests of the USA" in practice.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#497

Post by nthot » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #466

morpheuskafka wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically big companies will no longer have any reason to work on open source projects anymore if they can't fund them with "unrelated services?" You can head over to github, clone the AOSP tree, and do whatever the heck you want with it. Separately, Google has developed the Play ecosystem, and several of its own apps for Android. If you want you phone to have that stuff, you tell Google and you join the Open Hand…

Possibly true. But the direct exchange of money for a product or service creates a salutory incentive structure. And unfortunately, the rise of open source has been associated with the rise of indirect monetization models that aren't as beneficial, especially in the consumer space.

Painting this as an unintended consequence of open source is really interesting. The rise of free open source alternatives to proprietary products has encouraged companies to provide products free, but these companies aren't going to be motivated to provide these products without some avenue for profit.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#498

Post by diminoten » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

kmkemp wrote: post #482

diminoten wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's uncontroversial to say Net Neutrality is pro-consumer on HN because we're the people who know the technical aspects of the concept; it's uncontroversial anywhere people know what it's about. But the point is well made. We can't be breaking up companies that don't do what we want, if they're playing by the rules. The real answer is to change the rules. Warren is running on some populist anger, and that's a danger…

That's fine also, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. If lax laws have allowed monopolies to take hold, then the job of the government is to protect consumers by creating a free market - and that may mean breaking companies up. In the case that the monopoly is natural or sufficiently hard to prevent, the government should either take over the industry and run it as a non-profit or intervene in such a way th…

In absolutely no way should the government do any of those things. The government should instead pass laws that reflect how the people want corporations to behave, and until they do so, not punish or harm corporations for playing by the rules.

The government running an entire industry, even the threat of such a thing, is a great way to completely destroy innovation in that industry. Why would I invest in research if it's a real possibility the government can come in and take everything from me for nothing?

What you're suggesting doesn't create a free market, it creates a dead market.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#499

Post by TheRealDunkirk » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #16

To what end? "illegally undermine competition?" She is inferring that Google/Amazon/Facebook are committing anti-trust crimes? What proof does she have? >Companies would be barred from transferring or sharing users’ data with third parties. That can be done without breaking them up. I don't think she realizes that splitting up amazon and amazon basics will do little to nothing. There are other things that can be done…

> To what end? "illegally undermine competition?"

It doesn't have to be illegal to undermine competition. Luxottica owns a vertical of 80% of the brands, the factories, the retail stores, AND the largest insurance company concerning eyeglasses in America. It isn't illegal, but the rents they are extracting from our society by keeping prices artificially high sure as hell SHOULD be.

Re: Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

#500

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #477

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe net neutrality is a regulatory capture move, and gives Google and Netflix a stranglehold over the industry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19316513 Marketing to the contrary, I believe there are good, strong justifications for against net neutrality, as a consumer and someone excited about the future of technology. Additionally, and far more importantly: Comcast is a regional monopoly. They have a lot…

You have claimed that it's a stranglehold, but never explained what actually makes it so, given that any would-be Google and Netflix competitor would have access to the same pipes as those two, and on the same terms.

Economy of scale. For instance, Netflix has CDN boxes all over the planet, colocated by the ISPs. ISPs have to colocate them for free, because with net neutrality, they have to either accept the massive network traffic over their peering connections, or accept the box. Any smaller provider would need to pay for the privilege of colocation in an ISP's datacenter, and they'd also have to supply all of those boxes, that a company on Netflix's scale can easily afford.

Without net neutrality, ISPs would be free to charge big players like Google and Netflix more money, and that would leave a lot more room for smaller players to get involved. Getting "the same terms" as Google and Netflix is not always, inherently, a good thing.