Where Warren’s Wrong
stratechery.com
Where Warren’s Wrong
1–10 of 290 posts
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#2It's really hard to read an article that conflates moral or ethical concepts (should FAANG exist?) with legal ones (are FAANG vulnerable to existing antitrust laws?), particularly in the context of comparative international law.
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#3A lot is wrong, but I appreciate than Ben gives credit where due.
”Let me reiterate a point I have made twice now: I appreciate Senator Warren raising these issues; they are indeed critical not only for the world today, but also the world we wish to create in the future."
And
"This is why I have called Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram The Greatest Regulatory Failure of the Past Decade, and called for an end to social networks being allowed to buy other social networks."
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#4While I agree to some extend with the author, he too is making large leaps without truly backing them up. He's fighting over semantics. While Warren may be wrong in her history, she's not truly wrong in the results. Amazon does exactly what she says, Amazon sees a Marketplace item is selling really well, so they start to sell it too at or slightly cheaper.
The reason people tend to use Google over Yelp as in his example isn't really choice, but a lot of times because people don't know. My mother as an example has no idea of the difference between Google and the internet, they are the same thing to her if Google promoted Yelp and other restaurant review sites over their own, she might use them, but she only knows what google shows her. This is a lot more common than people with an understanding of tech realize for the average consumer.
Google's business should be that, advertising and showing accurate search results. But they need people to stay on their pages longer, so that they get more ad dollars, so they start duplicating other popular sites to maintain the user's attention. They are in a position of power that no other company has, and when they decide they are going to compete with your idea, they have a completely unfair advantage, strictly because they have become, to many, the Gatekeepers of the Web. They also provide the most popular Web Browser, which defaults to Google. Think that's fair? Think the average consumer knows any better.
His discussion of the Microsoft Antitrust is also a little dumb, while a computer coming bundled with a Web browser does make it more useful, it was the way that Microsoft did it, to ensure their only competition had no real way of competing by using their dominance to make the web a IE only land. Proprietary Web API that only worked in IE that didn't follow the standard meant a lot of early developers only targeted IE because it was too hard or expensive to target Netscape too. This was the heart of the antitrust, and while Google may have emerged non-the-less, we would not have Firefox or probably even chrome and they Web would definitely not be what it is today, because Microsoft didn't foster innovation on the Web, that was thanks to Mozilla and other open-source browsers. The web might have eventually become what it is today, but most experts agree Microsoft is a large part of the reason we aren't farther ahead because they killed competition at the drop of a hat. The author seems to forget how bleak and shitty the web was when IE was the only choice and Microsoft didn't update IE from version 6 for almost 5 years, when they finally released the garbage that was IE 7.
Tech is a much different beast and while Warren could certainly use some help to clarify her reasons for wanting to break up these tech giants, she's not completely wrong either. However, big tech isn't where her focus should be completely. Comcast, ATT, Version. These companies essentially control the internet backbone and are monopolies in many areas. Consumers have little to no competition for how they get internet access and that's one of the biggest issues.
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#5If it makes more sense to keep these tech giants as conglomerates then there exists other methods of using the resources more economically. For instance lowering their transfer payments(raising taxes on their activities in classical economics.)
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#6"What is more striking is that, in retrospect, the core piece of the government’s case doesn’t make any sense: of course a browser should be bundled with an operating system; a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?). Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no choice but to use the built-in rendering engine) has significant security benefits; this is debatable, but ultimately, most don’t care, simply because browsers are means to information, not ends."
Someone may want to revisit this argument.
1. The same way Netscape achieved its original dominance?
2. Integrating a browser engine with the core operating system increases security...how?
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#7I have to admit I'm a little taken aback by the focus on how the stated rationale is weak or doesn't fit every company equally while agreeing that there are real problems that would be addressed. Is there a word for this? Its almost nit-picking? Pedantry? Like dismissing someone who is fighting against anti-vaxxers because they didn't quote the most definitive study as rationale. Explanations of policy ideas aren't targeted at experts but at laypeople so I don't see the problem with using terms or rationale they understand even if its not perfect.
I mean the core of the whole idea is that no one should both control the platform and simultaneously participate in it. Is the author against that? The pushback seems to be that it would lead to lawsuits which is almost a cliche from anyone trying to dismiss an idea.
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#8" What is more striking is that, in retrospect, the core piece of the government’s case doesn’t make any sense: of course a browser should be bundled with an operating system; a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?). Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no…
[deleted]
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#9I wish the author and anyone writing about this would disclose their positions in these companies or that they have none. The merits of any argument on this topic are only worth considering if we know that they're being presented in good faith.
And to be clear, this applies to people who are pro-dismantling and anti-dismantling.
Re: Where Warren’s Wrong
#10I have to admit I'm a little taken aback by the focus on how the stated rationale is weak or doesn't fit every company equally while agreeing that there are real problems that would be addressed. Is there a word for this? Its almost nit-picking? Pedantry? Like dismissing someone who is fighting against anti-vaxxers because they didn't quote the most definitive study as rationale. Explanations of policy ideas aren't t…
I had the same impression. But this is how political discourse seems to work this day. Instead of making suggestions for improvement an idea gets dismissed completely and nothing happens as a result. Happened with Obamacare and also with the discussion about regulations. Instead of suggesting specific improvements it turns into a black and white debate without results.