House Democrats Tackle Big Tech 'Monopolies' (axios.com) 119
The House Judiciary Committee says Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are monopolies -- but its new plan to rein in their power won't change anything overnight. Instead, Democratic lawmakers propose to rewrite American antitrust law in order to restructure the U.S.'s most successful and powerful industry over time. From a report: The report is a long pass down the field of the tech industry's unfolding conflicts. It could be game-changing -- but it also might never get completed. The report, which runs more than 450 pages, proposes broad updates to antitrust law, including: limiting companies' ability to compete unfairly against third parties on their own platforms by either requiring online marketplaces to be independently run businesses or establishing rules for how such marketplaces can be organized; blocking online platforms from giving themselves preferential treatment or playing favorites with other content providers; requiring social networks to be interoperable so that people can communicate across platforms and carry their data over from one platform to another; directing antitrust enforcers to assume that an acquisition by a dominant tech firm is anticompetitive unless proven otherwise; and allowing news publishers to team up to negotiate against tech platforms looking to carry their content.
Committee investigators spent 16 months reviewing mountains of emails, memos and other evidence to reach these conclusions about the companies:
Amazon: The internet retail giant achieved its dominant position in part through acquiring competitors; has a monopoly over and mistreats third-party sellers; and has created a conflict of interest through its double role as an operator of its marketplace and also a seller there.
Apple: The report says Apple exerts monopoly power over software distribution to more than half the mobile devices in the U.S. It accuses the company of exploiting rivals by levying commissions and fees and copying apps, and says Apple gives preference to its own apps and services.
Facebook: The social media network has monopoly power in the social networking space, the report finds, and takes a "copy, acquire, kill" approach to would-be rivals such as WhatsApp and Instagram, both of which it bought in the early 2010s.
Google: The search engine has a monopoly in the general online search and search advertising markets, according to the report, maintaining its position through anticompetitive tactics such as undermining vertical search providers and acquiring rivals.
"To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons," write the authors of the report. The other side: The companies all deny that they hold monopoly positions or that their practices and acquisitions violate antitrust law, and argue that the tech industry remains healthily competitive.
Committee investigators spent 16 months reviewing mountains of emails, memos and other evidence to reach these conclusions about the companies:
Amazon: The internet retail giant achieved its dominant position in part through acquiring competitors; has a monopoly over and mistreats third-party sellers; and has created a conflict of interest through its double role as an operator of its marketplace and also a seller there.
Apple: The report says Apple exerts monopoly power over software distribution to more than half the mobile devices in the U.S. It accuses the company of exploiting rivals by levying commissions and fees and copying apps, and says Apple gives preference to its own apps and services.
Facebook: The social media network has monopoly power in the social networking space, the report finds, and takes a "copy, acquire, kill" approach to would-be rivals such as WhatsApp and Instagram, both of which it bought in the early 2010s.
Google: The search engine has a monopoly in the general online search and search advertising markets, according to the report, maintaining its position through anticompetitive tactics such as undermining vertical search providers and acquiring rivals.
"To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons," write the authors of the report. The other side: The companies all deny that they hold monopoly positions or that their practices and acquisitions violate antitrust law, and argue that the tech industry remains healthily competitive.
Replace monopoly with big and successful (Score:2, Troll)
This is the MO here. Vilify the huge corporations and break them up? Naw, I think the US government has realized how much money they can make off of this from the EU. The government needs it's fair share!!!
Why don't we look at the most corrupt monopoly of them all: government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We claim to believe in capitalism, it only works when there's competition and no 500 lb gorilla in the room keeping more efficient companies or better products from the market. It needs rules and referees to function. Further, while we believe in Capitalism, most of us (by population, not dollars) believe in democracy and individual liberty more. That takes even more rules.
The libertarian ideal is a childish wet dream that always devolves into a thugs with the most guns dictating how things work.
Re: (Score:3)
My response was more as a gag. Notice the government doesn't go after companies who are not making alot of money or have alot of money on hand? Can't you admit this looks a bit like a money grab.
I've always said, follow the money, and that is double in the govenment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice the government doesn't go after companies who are not making alot of money or have alot of money on hand? Can't you admit this looks a bit like a money grab.
To be fair, can you name another company that doesn't make a lot of money that holds a dominate position in a powerful industry?
Good point. If they are going after companies with monopoly power from market dominance, I'd say by definition that cannot include companies that are not making a lot of money.
The whole point of anti-trust is to not let companies use their dominate position which makes a lot of money to squash competitors or to use the money they make in the dominate position to subsidize and euthanize players in other industries. Which is exactly what amazon, google and facebook have done.
Right.
Turns out that monopoly power destroys the workings of a free market. You should have learned that in economics 101.
Re: (Score:2)
This does not look like a money grab at all, their decisions actually seem fairly ideal, although the devil will be in the legal details.
I have seen money grabs on rich corporations, usually that comes up when we talk about how they are taxed. Then, rather than fix the tax law (admittedly, nearly impossible, especially right now), they attempt to fine, rape and pillage the richest guy in the room. The EU does sometimes show us the way on that one, although I don't think we've ever been above it. Either way,
Re: (Score:2)
>"We claim to believe in capitalism, it only works when there's competition [...] The libertarian ideal is a childish wet dream"
A large percent of conservatives and libertarians also believe in monopoly controls of one form or another. They believe in capitalism and free markets primarily but also know those don't work if there are monopolies interfering. So it is not uncommon to have both supporting breaking up companies or going after them when they are abusing power.
It is NOT common, however, for t
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't we look at the most corrupt monopoly of them all: government.
You're full of shit. We elect the government. Any corruption in our government is a reflection on the voters, who reliably reelect 90% of their corrupt politicians every single time. What incentive is there to correct the problem with numbers like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ideally we would elect our government. Unfortunately with the more extreme gerrymandering and voter supression going on these days, its more like the government chooses its voters.
Re: (Score:2)
"Biggest monopoiy"? So, you think that Big Corporate Brother, where anyone other than the 1% has no control, no way to affect it, is good?
The Thing To Remember (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the 90's, before the Department of Justice brought charges against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft had a total of two lobbyists, and spent next to nothing on lobbying activities. After the case, Microsoft has an entire office in Washington DC.
The cynical reading would be that politicians saw a potential source of political funding, and leveraged the lawsuit to get Microsoft more "involved" in politics. Somewhere floating around the internet is a somewhat famous voice mail that a senator left for a road paving company in her state, stating that she sits on the federal transportation panel, and that she was surprised that the company hasn't "reached out" to her for support. I think we are seeing the same thing here played out on a larger scale.
Re:The Thing To Remember (Score:5, Interesting)
An even more cynical take would be to remember that the Democrats basically blamed Facebook for Hillary losing in 2016, and that this is essentially payback for that.
There's a real strong push from the left to "do something about big tech." Of course, the exact problem with "big tech" is sort of nebulous (it "promotes extremism" or something) so the "solutions" being offered are just as nebulous. (What exactly do they have monopolies on? How would breaking them up help? Who knows!)
From what I can tell, this is less about soliciting more campaign money, and more about traditional "wedge issue" politics for a certain segment of the left that sees "big tech" as an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
The cynical reading would be that politicians saw a potential source of political funding, and leveraged the lawsuit to get Microsoft more "involved" in politics.
That's not cynical, that's outright conspiracy nutjobbery. There was no shortage of lobbying and "donations" prior to the Microsoft case.
Microsoft (Score:2)
Are you talking specifically about Microsoft? Here's an article on their entire federal lobbying effort prior to the case, which consisted of a single lobbyist operating from a DC suburban sales office.
https://money.cnn.com/magazine... [cnn.com]
And who exactly is to blame? (Score:4, Interesting)
The House Judiciary Committee says Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are monopolies -- but its new plan to rein in their power won't change anything overnight. Instead, Democratic lawmakers propose to rewrite American antitrust law in order to restructure the U.S.'s most successful and powerful industry over time.
After looking at the history of antitrust investigations by the US Government, I can only conclude that politicians let monopolies happen until the monopoly stops working for them and starts working against them. We shouldn't be upset with Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, AT&T, American Tobacco, Standard Oil, and so on, as much as we should be upset with Uncle Sam.
Re:And who exactly is to blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
After looking at the history of antitrust investigations by the US Government, I can only conclude that politicians let monopolies happen until the monopoly stops working for them and starts working against them.
A juvenile assessment at best. A better assessment is that new and emerging markets are difficult to regulate, especially when many politicians think any regulation is too much regulation. Further impeding reforms from being made is lobbying, super PACs and the unabated flow of money into politics.
Nothing is as black and white as people want them to be.
Re: (Score:1)
Blaming the money is wagging the dog.
Blame the star struck people that reelect celebrity bling in search of preferential treatment and personal attention
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming the money is wagging the dog.
Money is merely the carrot. So long as there is money involved then there will always be someone willing to follow that carrot. This is a fundamental truth and not a complex on at that.
Blame the star struck people that reelect...
They are not blameless but they are not organized enough to recognize much less correct the situation. Ranked voting could address this but that requires politicians to work against their own interests.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a fundamental truth and not a complex on at that.
Absolutely true. It is not the carrot's fault for being so desired. And the carrot cannot change itself into something less desirous. So the obligation falls on the human to stop acting like animals thinking of nothing but carrots.
In all our various democracies and republics around the world, the single fatal flaw is the voter. The system reflects them.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely true. It is not the carrot's fault for being so desired. And the carrot cannot change itself into something less desirous. So the obligation falls on the human to stop acting like animals thinking of nothing but carrots.
Therein lies the problem, there is always plenty of people that willing to follow the carrot. The problem is that in addition to being desirable that money also helps people get elected. It's not the only factor but it is a large factor because no party will support a candidate that cannot draw in campaign funding. The conclusion is that changing how campaigns are funded is a way to change who can be a candidate and therefore who gets elected.
Ranked voting and publicly funding campaigns would radically c
Re: (Score:1)
There is no reason to make the public pay for political campaigns. The whole idea sounds very fascist. Campaigning is done backwards anyway. We should be treating the job as a service, like jury duty, not electing snake oil selling egomaniacs that want to control the world.
there is always plenty of people that willing to follow the carrot
Then it's an evolutionary issue. That's disappointing. I expected better from humans, since they claim not to be animals. Even ranked voting will need sufficient demand from the voters, I believe Maine is the example of the week. Maybe so
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to make the public pay for political campaigns.
I literally just described a very good reason.
The whole idea sounds very fascist.
Then you don't understand what fascism is.
Then it's an evolutionary issue. That's disappointing. I expected better from humans, since they claim not to be animals.
It's not that simple as motivations vary far and wide but no, we are and have always been animals. Just because humans are capable of higher thought doesn't mean humans are less of an animal somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not a good reason. It's the very worst use of tax money.
It's funny that you would prefer a more corrupt government to save millions. How much do you think a government full of politicians doling out favorable laws to their corporate sponsors costs? This is like someone not brushing their teeth because toothpaste costs too much and then paying thousands to dentists to fix your rotting teeth. You can declare you saved so much on toothpaste but everyone knows you're the fool all the same.
we just have to learn to do it better.
Yeah, that cannot work due to the same reason there is Eternal September.
Ho
Re: (Score:2)
After looking at the history of antitrust investigations by the US Government, I can only conclude that politicians let monopolies happen until the monopoly stops working for them and starts working against them.
A juvenile assessment at best. A better assessment is that new and emerging markets are difficult to regulate, especially when many politicians think any regulation is too much regulation. Further impeding reforms from being made is lobbying, super PACs and the unabated flow of money into politics.
Many politicians are greedy and corrupt who have probably done enough to deserve jail time. The juvenile assessment, would be dismissing Greed as anything but Greed. The only logical explanation to object to any regulation, is corruption.
Nothing is as black and white as people want them to be.
And yet it could be, if you simply got Greed N. Corruption off the fucking board of every major US Corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
The only logical explanation to object to any regulation, is corruption.
Suppose that I wished to regulate industry with the following law:
Because senior citizens are far more likely to fall victim to online scams, in the interest of protecting the public from these scams, no company shall provide Internet service to anyone over the age of 60 unless sponsored by someone under the age of 40 who must monitor the senior citizen's Internet use to reduce the risk of harm.
Would you object to that regulation? Then you must be corrupt. :-)
I'm assuming what you meant was that the only reason to object to any reasonable regulation (which the above was clearly not intended to be) that has broad voter support (which the above clearly would not) is corruption. And that, I would probably agree with, but with the caveat that "reasonable" must be carefully defined to ensure that laws that disproportionately harm any m
Re: (Score:2)
The only logical explanation to object to any regulation, is corruption.
Suppose that I wished to regulate industry with the following law:
Because senior citizens are far more likely to fall victim to online scams, in the interest of protecting the public from these scams, no company shall provide Internet service to anyone over the age of 60 unless sponsored by someone under the age of 40 who must monitor the senior citizen's Internet use to reduce the risk of harm.
Would you object to that regulation? Then you must be corrupt. :-)
I'm assuming what you meant was that the only reason to object to any reasonable regulation (which the above was clearly not intended to be) that has broad voter support (which the above clearly would not) is corruption. And that, I would probably agree with, but with the caveat that "reasonable" must be carefully defined to ensure that laws that disproportionately harm any minority group are not considered reasonable (or, for that matter, any laws that discriminate against any group for pretty much any reason other than income).
Good catch, and yes, I certainly did mean reasonable regulation. But the problem with "broad" voter support is we tend to really pay attention to fringe/minority groups that hardly represent the majority. I'm certainly not meaning to incite some kind of flame war, but transgender athletes in sports is a prime example here. Gender dysmorphia represents less than 1% of society. And yet we have basically destroyed the concept of female competition to specifically accommodate that extremely small minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch, and yes, I certainly did mean reasonable regulation. But the problem with "broad" voter support is we tend to really pay attention to fringe/minority groups that hardly represent the majority. I'm certainly not meaning to incite some kind of flame war, but transgender athletes in sports is a prime example here. Gender dysmorphia represents less than 1% of society. And yet we have basically destroyed the concept of female competition to specifically accommodate that extremely small minority. Seems all the historical evidence and biological facts in the world didn't matter. And biological women sadly not participating in sports is the end result.
If that is happening on a large scale, then that's unfortunate. Still, I think that most of the time, those concerns are overblown. There are many stories from the early days of sports where women played on boys' basketball teams. Women still play on nearly all-male football teams in some places. They have to make some accommodations, and I'm not sure what they do about the locker room in those situations, but they make it work, and they do it out of support for their teammates. Somewhere along the way
Re: (Score:2)
Expanding on other Tech Monopolies.. (Score:3)
Does this mean we can soon expect the Government to follow suit with AMD, making them separate video from processor development/sales? What about Comcast/Verizon/Spectrum/AT&T's Triple-Play TV/Internet/Phone(and cellular) offerings, will those have to be broken up as well on the same grounds?
Re: (Score:3)
I hope so but don't hold your breath. Many people in the tech industry have been calling for breakups of communications services for probably 20 years. That is part of why the FTC always reviews mergers and buyouts of the kinds of companies you listed. Overall, it is risky to the market and to speech to allow content creators and content delivery systems to be a single entity. It leads to all kinds of anti-competitive behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean we can soon expect the Government to follow suit with AMD
How so? In what way is AMD who are a minority in the CPU space, and a minority in the GPU space even remotely considered a monopoly or a company with too much market power.
Maybe you should RTFS, they aren't going after "big tech". They are going after tech companies who have abused their market power. Not only has AMD demonstrated no abuse, they have demonstrated very little market power as well.
Now ISPs, that would be a fun shitshow to take down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just citing an example, I didn't say I agreed with the idea. As far as I'm concerned, AMD should keep on doing business as-is. AMD is as anti-competitive as Apple is in this case. You're always welcome to go over to the other side of the street and buy Intel and get NVIDIA gear. AMD just offers some one-stop-shop options, and while they might all not be the top tier options, they aren't garbage either. In the same way you're always welcome to go over to the Android side of the street or engage with
And the key thing is... (Score:2)
"but it also might never get completed". This sounds like a shakedown to me. Typical sabre rattling from the government. Paradoxically, if any real legislation were to be passed it could end up being a barrier to any further competition. In which case the big tech companies, which are already in bed with the Democrats, will welcome it.
Biting the hand that feeds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't care one way or the other. Their singular objective is to do what's best for the bottom line. They read spreadsheets, not law books.
Re: (Score:1)
"Big Tech" has been fully behind the Democrats. I wonder how much longer that will last.
Well democrats want to investigate them. Trump on the other hand depending on the phase of the moon swings between set the entire concept on fire, regulate, shutdown, sell off, or just plain complains that they should be illegal.
I'm also willing to bet that very little will come out of the investigation into Apple and Facebook, and that what will come out of the investigation of Amazon and Google will result in little more than minor tweaks into how they do business.
Quite a different story from Trump's desi
There are some points (Score:2)
Bring out the big tech apologists (Score:4, Interesting)
This will surely bring out the apologists who will say to start your own Google or Facebook. By way of example, Microsoft couldn't compete with Google in search and Google couldn't compete with Facebook in Social. Both started with billions of dollars in the bank and considerable resources for talent and professional expertise. The idea that the market can cure these monopolies is beyond parody. The only thing that is pragmatic is to start treating them as the monopolies that they are and formally treat them as utilities.
These companies are so large that they literally consider themselves to be above nation states. They are presently abusing their power right now to interfere in the 2020 election. Do you want unelected bureaucrats picking the world's leaders? Just because they are trying to get rid of Trump this time, doesn't mean they will pick someone you like next time.
The time tested solution for monopolies is to use RAND. RAND refers to Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory access for any and all customers on the same terms. RAND is also just about the most accepted precedent approved by the Supreme Court in US history (going back to the 1800's in dozens of cases). It has been used on everything from harbors to railroad terminals to microchips (RAMBUS is a famous example) and even Microsoft.
It means everyone gets the same costs without different prices or kickbacks regardless of who they are. That means no more censorship of deals favoring one product over another, they must treat everyone the same. No more shadow banning, detuning, getting cancelled or other means of censorship of any kind. They would become similar to the post office or telcos in that matter.
Look for David to take down Goliath (Score:2)
Google couldn't compete with Facebook in Social. Both started with billions of dollars in the bank and considerable resources for talent and professional expertise.
Large, lumbering companies are the wrong ones to look at to take down dominant players. Look to the upstarts. Instagram was beating FB in social (until their FTC-approved buyout). Snapchat, TikTok, Pinterest, Tinder, and others are all taking parts of the market. All of them are startups. Big Tech might have resources to launch new products, but in a time when VC funding is plentiful and compute resources are cheap, that doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:3)
The real solution is to stop using centralized social networks, and go back to the original design of the internet where you publish your own content. I am long since sick of everybody choosing a platform and posting everything there, thus forcing everyone else to sign-up for an account at that place in order to communicate with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, what now?
Slashdot is my only "social media" account, and I'm doing just fine. If you feel some pressure to sign up for some internet shit, that's 100% on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Large, lumbering companies are the wrong ones to look at to take down dominant players. Look to the upstarts.
Large lumbering companies take down dominant players by looking for the upstarts and buying them.
While, on the other hand, dominant players take down upstarts by looking for them and buying them.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok was backed by billions of dollars in funding from the Chinese government. Calling them a startup would be akin to calling Bing a startup when it was launched. Pinterest and Tinder and the others are gaining popularity, however none of them can be considered competitors for Big Tech. I'm reminded of when Zuckerberg was asked to name a single competitor for Facebook and couldn't do it.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]
The EU has also found them to have monopolies that are being abused and feels that the
Re: (Score:1)
You’re just attempting to twist the topic towards your anti-section 230 agenda. The problem with these companies isn’t that they run their platforms as they see fit (if you connect YOUR server to the internet, using YOUR hard-earned money, can I come along and post my opposing political viewpoints on your dime?), it’s that they stifle competition and gobble up upstart competitors.
Now, the thing is, that’s how capitalism is designed to work. Anyone who has ever played the board game
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that they run their companies as they see fit. The problem is that they abuse their monopoly. It's perfectly legal to have a monopoly so long as you don't abuse it. They abuse their monopoly by promoting their own products above others and shutting out any potential competition.
The bigger issue is that they are also censoring political speech. The latter is a big deal when their interfering in political elections all over the world. They have been heavily influencing the 2020 election agai
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC actually has a page up where they define monopoly. I'll quote and provide citation for your reference:
Re: (Score:3)
By way of example, Microsoft couldn't compete with Google in search and Google couldn't compete with Facebook in Social.
The inability to compete is not some magical sign. Honestly Google's offering was confusing as heck and offered no compelling reason for it to be adopted. Bing is ... well its results were as stupid as its name, it should be telling that it's the default search engine shipped with a fresh install of Windows and people still refuse to use it. Again that's not a sign of Google being some abusive anti-trust case.
I still fondly remember my Myspace account. What a behemoth that was. A social network for the ages
Re: (Score:2)
Your point about the companies that they took down being ripe for disruption is one that we agree on. In some ways big tech today is also ripe for disruption. Unfortunately they are more entrenched today then the robber barons were back in the trust buster days. They are well past 50% market share and staying power that defines a monopoly per the FTC.
The issue isn't moderation in and of itself. It's politically motivated moderation that's done by monopolies. It's akin to the post office of phone company in
Re: (Score:2)
No more shadow banning, detuning, getting cancelled or other means of censorship of any kind.
So you're opposed to the First Amendment and free speech and free association, got it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am when it's done by monopolies abusing their monopolies to squelch the first amendment and free speech of the citizens instead of big tech. It's a false dichotomy to say that the rights of Big Tech outweigh the rights of hundreds of millions of American citizens. Not buying it.
They blatantly abuse their monopolies to censor the political views of the plurality of Americans. They have done so to the point where we effectively have Chinese levels of censorship in the United States - complete with social cr
Re: Bring out the big tech apologists (Score:2)
I am when it's done by monopolies abusing their monopolies to squelch the first amendment and free speech of the citizens instead of big tech. It's a false dichotomy
It is a false dichotomy in that the abuse you're complaining of is simply not happening. And that even if the underlying action were being taken, it still wouldn't be an abuse.
First, the abuse you claim exists is that various companies are trying to help the US government in censoring people. (Because First Amendment rights are only good against American governments) But that's clearly not happening.
Second, the First Anendment rights of people (not just citizens; your bigotry is showing) are not affected by
I am skeptical that Democrats will do anything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really news? (Score:3)
This investigation is not new. It started 16 months ago, not long after the current House was seated.
Like most investigations (not just legislative), it started with the conclusion that some crime MUST have happened, and investigators dug and dug until there was evidence to support that conclusion. Whether or not the evidence shows illegal activity or just unethical activity, we do not know yet. We might never know.
Perhaps the most news-worthy part of this story is that both Democrats and Republicans dislike the same companies, but people treat their dislikes differently. Democrats are praised for standing up for the little guy when they talk of breaking up these companies, while Republicans are demons for wanting it.
What, no Microsoft? eBay? (Score:3)
I'm surprised Microsoft failed to make the cut. Does that mean they are paying their Congressional protection money while the others are not?
And what about eBay? They seem to be a dominant (sole?) player in the on-line auction area, now expanded into a resell marketplace to rival Cragslist et al.
Why are some mega unicorns singled out while others are not? Could it be that those who also control media outlets are somehow exempt? Hmmm.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised Microsoft failed to make the cut.
For what? Note that TFS mentions specifics, they didn't just rattle off a list of tech companies.
And what about eBay? They seem to be a dominant (sole?) player in the on-line auction area, now expanded into a resell marketplace to rival Cragslist et al.
Holy shit ebay is an auction site? I don't think I've ever seen an auction on it. I thought it was an Amazon rival except smaller and with even more Chinese sellers.
Seriously though, there's nothing illegal about being big or being the only game in town. Has ebay used it's incredible market influence to eliminate Craigslist through nefarious actions by actively preventing the competition? No? Didn't think so. By
Current Anti Trust Law Doesn't Apply IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)
Bipartisan agreement is rare in the US government today, but in this case they can all agree that they have little control over the big tech firms and politicians don't like not controlling the message to the masses.
In the case of Facebook, they want to shoot the messenger. Facebook's biggest issue is dealing with intractable freedom of speech issues and global at sca
Re: (Score:3)
All of these companies have significant competition. None of them are true monopolies.
It's good that you stated you have no idea of anti-trust law in the opening two sentences by mentioning two things which are not at all even considered as part of an anti-trust case. For future reference:
a) You just need to have market power, you do not need to be a monopoly, or even a part of an oligopoly.
b) You just need to abuse that market power to the detriment of another player. Whether or not there is more competition in the market is completely irrelevant.
No need to put "monopolies" in quotes. (Score:2)
Localized monopolies, like lock-in, are still monopolies.
It takes quite the moral contortions, to argue that it is "not" a monopoly because you still have a "choice". (Like the one to not have a smartphone. Very real-world that "choice"... /s)
Hate 'em if you hate "Big Government"... (Score:2)
What is a "government"? It's the thing that makes basic infrastructural decisions, not just roads, but including "cultural infrastructure", like what's tolerable misbehaviour or corruption, and what's intolerable and halted. It's Hobbes "Leviathan", that decisively settles all disputes.
Explain to me how MAGAFTN (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix) are not the "government of the internet".
I'm really discovering my inner conservative, hating Big Government. Well, unelected Big G
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Given how bad our current, elected big government is, maybe we should try an unelected one.
Not enough censorship (Score:1)
The Dems have decided that the "big tech giants" -- in other words platforms where the public can speak their mind -- are not censoring enough content in support of Democrats and their party line.
It's a well-established result of optometry that politicians are exceedingly near-sighted and can rarely see beyond the tips of their own noses. The "big tech giants" and their de facto monopolies allow them the wherewithal to fund high risk innovation and research. That has been the pattern in America since fore
Hi..I was a really bad..girl. (Score:1)
Limited list (Score:1)
Tackle? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes! more racial division to stop em from forming those bloody unions.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't doubt that that there is some political reason behind it. In Which I feel that "More tangible support of the Democrats Cause" may allow them to turn their heads away from many of the problems.
However The Companies, have a lot of power with little oversight, and we are relying on them to self regulate themselves. Many people use these sources as their primary source of information. Being that everyone gets their custom news, suited for them and their political stance, means we are not gettin
Re: (Score:2)
Both the Red and Blue Gangs have decided the tech giants aren't giving them enough bribes, so they're firing a warning shot over their bows because, "that's a nice business you got there...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
FTFY. Time to wise up and realize no Representative, is actually earning that title, all of them work for the Donor Class.
Shit-slinging politics IS the politics being abused to distract ignorant citizens from blatant corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was never a fan of Antitrust law in general, but even then, the bar set by the Sherman act is VERY high. Because none of them hold such high market concentrating positions in their products, none of them would qualify.
Re:Reading between the lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I am a HUGE fan of breaking up large powerful companies. These international mega-corporations have far too much power over our lives and our government, and they need to be cut down to size. We can not have robust competition, necessary for a truly free market, when we have so few companies dominating so many markets.
But of course, capitalists hate the free market. They despise competition, and want to corner, dominate, and control any market they find. Maximizing profits requires minimizing competition, and for all the lip service capitalists pay to the concept of a free market, it gets in the way of the one thing they really want: control.
And don't even get me started on how many board members sit on multiple boards. They are conspiring to take money out of the real, working economy, and put it into their legalized gambling for billionaires. As Thomas Piketty pointed out, if profits exceed growth in GDP in the long term, the only place for that extra money to come is out of the pockets of common folks.
Maybe you are fine with that, and if your primary source of income is stocks, I can understand why you would be. But for anyone who works for a living, this legalized theft by the wealthy elites has real consequences.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't Standard Oil or the railroads, or even Ma Bell. These companies are bullshit entertainment that can be tuned out, and nobody will will starve, and our crops will still make it to market.
This is a censorship crusade by the DNC/GOP coalition. The industry wants to have complete control over user input. They have to protect the 90% reelection rates for their rubber stamp courts and politicians.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, it's fucknuttery on all sides. Big corporations: evil. Entrenched political machinery: evil. Everyone involved just fucking sociopathic assholes, bent on world domination and thought control.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I do not want companies that are able to tell government to go fuck itself. That means an unaccountable private entity has more power than my democratically elected government. That's bad. Even if the outcome in one case is pro-consumer, it's still bad.
Government is not bad, or evil. That's just the rich spewing propaganda. They don't want us little people to have any checks and balances on their private power.
Re: (Score:3)
But of course, capitalists hate the free market. They despise competition, and want to corner, dominate, and control any market they find.
Absolutely. Competing is really hard work and there's no guarantee of success. This is why it's good to be skeptical of any CEO who says they're for free markets "but mine is a special case.".
Also, listen carefully to politicians. Are they pro-consumer, pro-business, or pro-market? There's a difference. Pro-business and pro-consumer are good for the groups you're protecting, at least in the short term. They screw the other side of the transaction and eventually lead to slower growth and reduced innovation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But of course, capitalists hate the free market. They despise competition, and want to corner, dominate, and control any market they find.
Nitpick: capitalists love the free market (a market without rules or interference) because the free market is what allowed them suppress competition. Capitalists hate markets regulated to look like a perfect market (a market with high level of competitions, what people often incorrectly associate with a free market).
Re: (Score:2)
Well put. But using two different definitions of "free market." When talking to us, capitalists want us to understand it as "a market that is free for anyone to compete in, and therefore one that has robust competition." But when talking among themselves, or to their bought and paid for politicians they mean it as "A market free from rules or government interference."
I ask, "Can you have a free country if you don't defend it? Can you have a free country without laws?" To have a free market, in the first sen
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a definition thing, nothing more. You don't want a free market. You want a perfect market. Both of those are economic concepts and thus have economic definitions beyond just having the word "free" and the word "market" together. The only reason we have a dichotomy of wants is because people think the term means something else, and corporations benefit from the confusion "Look the people want the free market, hear them roar!".
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was trying to say, but you put it more succinctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever gave me the Troll mod, either read a book (preferably a dictionary) or give your modpoints to someone intelligent.
DirectX needs to be spun off! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except this is in the House which is ruled by the Democrats that are the majority party.
Re: (Score:3)
And? Are you trying to claim the Republicans don't also have a bone to pick with these companies? Look at how much Trump loathes and despises Jeff Bezos for "allowing" the Washington Post to criticize him. Or, frankly, how much he despises any company that he sees as operating in a "liberal" state. Republicans want to reign in these corporations as much as Democrats do, specifically, they want to abolish their freedom to criticize Republicans.
And it all boils down to, these companies have not been playing b
Dems, and Reps too [Re:Reading between the lines] (Score:2)
And? Are you trying to claim the Republicans don't also have a bone to pick with these companies?
From the article we are discussing [axios.com]:
"Republicans on the committee offered two rival reports [axios.com], focusing more on complaints of conservative bias on the part of social media platforms than on antitrust concerns, which their business-friendly party has a long tradition of discounting."
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much signaling "Maybe if you stopped criticizing us, we'd do something about those nasty democrats and their dumb 'anti-trust' ideas. But as it stands, it's kinda looking like you have zero friends here in Washington. Might try playing ball instead of being so nasty?"
Re: (Score:2)
On this I believe you and I can whole heartedly agree.
LOL, in this world, if you look hard enough, you can generally find at least some common ground with almost anyone.
Have a great day!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try to keep this exchange in mind in the future, when we will almost certainly disagree again. I'll do my best to stay civil!
Re: (Score:1)
Censorship is a non partisan crusade. The DNC/GOP act as one, because they are... User input is the enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an ass. "Censorship"? Really? They don't bias searches, for example?
Why do you love the bigger the tech co, the better? Don't want a free market? Don't believe in competition?
Re: (Score:1)
You're an ass.
Yeah yeah... bla bla bla...
We have to free it ourselves. There is nothing that compels you to use these companies. They exist for your entertainment and the ad revenue you provide. These are not critical services that need regulating, they are marketing gimmicks. Treat them as such, and maybe they won't grow so big and powerful. In fact they aren't really. All their power comes from the audience.
Re: (Score:3)
"There's nothing that compels you to give your money to a scammer. You exist for their entertainment, and the cash you provide. These are not critical services that need regulating, they are con artists. Treat them as such, and maybe you won't get scammed."
"There's nothing that compels you to give your life to a murderer. You exist to be killed by them. They are not critical services that need regulating, they are killers. Treat them as such and maybe you won't get killed."
Honestly, you can use your exact a
Re: (Score:1)
If they are doing something illegal, you have a case to break them up, file charges, and punish the perpetrators. But this bullshit is pure political theater for control of the medium (a domestic TikTok), and it's the final stretch of this campaign season (the next one starts on the 4th)
Re: (Score:2)
But don't you see? "Illegal" in our country is defined by the laws our representatives pass. If we, the people want these monopolies to be illegal, they are. If we want to break them up (and why wouldn't we?) then we can.
And to a large extent, what these companies are doing IS illegal. We just need the political will to investigate and prosecute. That would require pissing off the donating class, and to do that, we'd need politicians with more spine.
I agree that this is most likely mere political theater, b
Re: (Score:2)
This article is talking about a different issue than what you are describing. This anti-trust push is lead by democrats, who generally love what the social media are doing with Trump. It's not about control of messaging or censorship, but (as far as I can tell) about actual monopolistic, anti-competitive practices, like the big tech giants gobbling up all competitors.
This is not about who posts what on Facebook. That's coming from Republicans, who want to censor what social media says about them. And I 100%
Re: (Score:2)
I love that idea! Well, patents don't really need reform. They still have reasonable terms, and for the most part, companies do license patents at reasonable rates. If anything, beef up the patent office with more, and better, patent officers, to weed out the trolls.
But for copyright, which has been expanded outrageously (mostly at the behest of Disney: note that copyright got extended just about every time Mickey was due to head to the public domain) this sounds like a great idea.
Re: (Score:1)
They're being accused of being monopolies in different spaces....
Re: (Score:2)
Four separate public companies run by four separate organizations. That's the exact opposite of monopoly.
No.
The existence of a monopoly in one market does not preclude the existence of other monopolies in other markets.
Re: (Score:2)
> The existence of a monopoly in one market does not preclude the existence of other monopolies in other markets.
Which four separate markets do you imagine these companies occupy?
Google makes a search engine. Are you seriously telling me you think Amazon, Apple, and Facebook also make search engines?
That's one. For the rest, stop being an idiot.
Show your work.
Re: (Score:2)