3 ms·

>But if one of these companies somehow bought youtube from google, that'd be bad, because consolidation (especially around distribution of information) is typic

by _red 9y ago

>But if one of these companies somehow bought youtube from google, that'd be bad, because consolidation (especially around distribution of information) is typically bad. So youtube2.com can never be created? How long has Instagram been around? Furthermore, your premise is financially flawed. How is the bankrupt NYT going to buy google? The MSM is turning into the "horse buggy whip" situation. Its an old, out-dated industry that is dying. Who cares if eventually only 3 businesses controls "ACME Horse Buggy Whips" -- its not really something to panic about.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
The point is that big companies with financial backing will use market advantage to stifle competition before it gets a chance (e.g. buying up the spectrum for cell phones, lobbying to prevent broadband competitors, patenting very basic concepts, buying up competition in its infancy). You can argue they missed the boat on buying youtube and putting it to their own ends (e.g. YouTube prime is only comcast subscribers). It sounds like you want to disagree with me, but my two points are [and you haven't really provided arguments against either] 1. There is insufficient competition in the market (cell phones, ISP, computer parts, and many others). Much of this is due to deliberate actions by larger companies to protect their pie. 2. The consolidation of media is bad for consumers, and its death is good. The level playing field of a public internet made all the difference.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  We need to start enforcing the Clayton Act again. It forbids any mergers or acquisitions that might substantially lessen competition in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country. Taken literally that would prevent almost all acquisitions of any large companies that in any way compete with each other.

by _red 9y ago

alexandercrohde 9y ago

The point is that big companies with financial backing will use market advantage to stifle competition before it gets a chance (e.g. buying up the spectrum for cell phones, lobbying to prevent broadband competitors, patenting very basic concepts, buying up competition in its infancy). You can argue they missed the boat on buying youtube and putting it to their own ends (e.g. YouTube prime is only comcast subscribers). It sounds like you want to disagree with me, but my two points are [and you haven't really provided arguments against either] 1. There is insufficient competition in the market (cell phones, ISP, computer parts, and many others). Much of this is due to deliberate actions by larger companies to protect their pie. 2. The consolidation of media is bad for consumers, and its death is good. The level playing field of a public internet made all the difference.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
We need to start enforcing the Clayton Act again. It forbids any mergers or acquisitions that might substantially lessen competition in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country. Taken literally that would prevent almost all acquisitions of any large companies that in any way compete with each other.