10 ms·

TL;DR The tech monopoly problem is because Silicon Valley has convinced regulators these firms are entirely new things, not subject to existing rules. Google+F

TL;DR The tech monopoly problem is because Silicon Valley has convinced regulators these firms are entirely new things, not subject to existing rules. Google+Facebook+Amazon+Uber+etc should (a) pay their full corporate taxes and (b) be treated like utilities. For example, if Facebook were a media company, they'd be liable for user content. Uber flaunting taxi regulations is a special case (IMHO). Outside of that, be careful what you ask for. In the US, certain utilities are absolutely NOT liable for user content. If you use a cell phone to plan a crime, Verizon is not liable for what is said or written. I do think the emerging tech monopoly is a problem (Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook), but it's not because of lack of application of old regulations to new use cases. It's because: technology moves quickly, there are strong network effects, and law+regulations have failed to adapt quickly enough.

pfarnsworth 9y ago
I love how people are now all of a sudden defending the "Taxi regulations" as if an artifical monopoly that was serving no one's best interests except for the monopoly was somehow a great thing. It's a lazy argument, especially for HN where old industries with arcane rules are meant to be broken. I guess you don't remember how shitty taxis were pre-Uber, when calling a cab 1 hour before you needed it was required, and you wouldn't know if they would actually come or not. And after waiting 1 hr they didn't come, you would be shit out of luck. Meanwhile, in every city where Uber pops up transportation gets better. Taxi monopolistic laws were meant to be disrupted, and I'm glad Uber has done it.
- Kiro 9y ago
  I agree but the Uber hate on HN is so strong that no-one will admit the positive impact they've actually had. Would love to see some real counter-arguments though.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    The positive impact was happening without Uber. There had been a variety of ride sharing programs for several year before Uber started, and the rise of smart phones would soon allow for easy charging people for the service. Uber than devoured the market by using rich guy connections to raise money, and ignoring regulations. And that's what people hate.
- rock_hard 9y ago
  I don't know why you got flagged...your post is spot on!
  - majewsky 9y ago
    He didn't get flagged, he got downvoted.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Anti-Uber has never meant pro Taxi. Those two positions are mostly unrelated.
- rovek 9y ago
  I went to a wedding in the countryside last year (5 miles from a decent town, hardly remote) and was reminded of how things still are outside cities. I literally could not get a taxi from the local firms and had to wait for a guest driving my way to leave naturally. Though Uber etc. still haven't completely solved the attitude problem of drivers who seem to feel they're doing you a favour rather than providing a service.
- jameskegel 9y ago
  Why is this comment being grayed? Despite the language, this is a legitimate rebuttal. > I love how people are now all of a sudden defending the "Taxi regulations" as if an artifical monopoly that was serving no one's best interests except for the monopoly was somehow a great thing. Conjecture, disregarding. > It's a lazy argument, especially for HN where old industries with arcane rules are meant to be broken. I cannot refute this. > calling a cab 1 hour before you needed it was required, and you wouldn't know if they would actually come or not This is still very true. > after waiting 1 hr they didn't come, you would be out of luck. This is true. > in every city where Uber pops up transportation gets better. This is the only thing I could come close to refuting, but it'd be an argument built wholly on anecdotal evidence. We should not be so easily provoked.
  - blowski 9y ago
    The comment seems to be suggesting there are only two possible positions - pro-taxi or pro-Uber. Furthermore, it suggest that HN has taken an aggregate position. In reality, I can be both pro-taxi and pro-Uber, or vice versa. Furthermore there are plenty of Uber defenders as well as attackers here on HN, so suggesting people are "all of a sudden defending taxis" seems a stretch. I agree that the taxi industry had and continues to have many problems, but I don't agree with much of Uber's behaviour either.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- DanBC 9y ago
  > you don't remember how shitty taxis were pre-Uber I don't remember that, because I live in a country that doesn't have awful taxis, and where Uber has little to offer except dubious insurance status.
  - pfarnsworth 9y ago
    You probably never use taxis in Vancouver then and/or you don't understand the value proposition that Uber brings. There are tens of thousands of people in SF alone that now earn money that previously didn't, and customers that have a much better transportation option that they are willing to pay for. https://www.bcbusiness.ca/vancouver-has-fewer-taxis-than-any-other-canadian-city https://www.bcbusiness.ca/vancouver-has-fewer-taxis-than-any...
- monksy 9y ago
  I think the Uber hate comes from their business practices, and people are reaching to jump on the bandwagon to hate uber at all cost. I think it's been a good service compared with taxis. But we're in this weird double standard, where we tolerate them breaking some rules but ignoring others. (Tolerating the taxi regulations, but violating basic decency [safety, passenger rights, etc])
- carapace 9y ago
  The problem with Uber isn't that they provide a decent "cab" service, it is that, collectively, they are amoral douche-bags.
rtpg 9y ago
I definitely qgree that safe harbor is important I think the main thing about tech is that it makes accessing the global market easier than ever. Monopolies in one sector can now extremely easily hop into another market. If anything it feels like an accelerated version of the railroad barons It sure feels like antitrust laws could be used effectively. Ultimately monopolies do have a lot of money and lobbying power though. Imagine being big enough to basically absorb the billions in fines from the EU. You're either a bank or Google. How do you fix that apart from ripping the company up into small pieces like with AT&T
- ethbro 9y ago
  Imho, article is largely missing the bigger point: stifling of innovation. Regulation should be focused on removing FB / Google's ability to unfairly leverage their size to thwart up and coming competitors. Otherwise you simply freeze the status quo and cement FB and Google into unassailable market constants. Sure you can regulate them to keep them from acting poorly, but what's the point if they can still squash the next Facebook or Google? Edit: Curious on thoughts on this, but it doesn't seem to me like a progressive corporate tax rate (including mandatory minimum) based on market share (with the overage dedicated to funding basic research) would be a terrible idea. If you have outsized market share, you're probably receiving more than your fair share of the commons, so reasonable to pay that back.
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    Every time I see that phrase I know the person who said it will never be able to answer this, but I still am tempted to ask: please define "fair share" and who exactly determines it and how.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Fair: an equitable distribution of resources and burdens according to community values and beliefs It's not rocket science. We (humans) use it every day. It's just contextually and subjectively defined by group consensus.
gwenzek 9y ago
I don't think the article advocates for b): > How can these benign, universally loved innovators be stopped from turning into evil, soulless corporate behemoths? Break up companies such as Facebook, Google and Amazon, (...) Or perhaps recognize them as utilities (...) Neither makes sense in most cases. In fact they advocate for c): Tech giants should be treated as classical business. Amazon like a retailer, Uber like a taxi comp, Airbnb like an hotel brand, … For Facebook they talk more about the fact if it was treated as a media company they should keep track of who is running ads and follow regulations on political ads.
HillaryBriss 9y ago
many will disagree with me, but i remain very surprised that these firms have not been hit by a lot more equal opportunity lawsuits from state and federal agencies.
sol_remmy 9y ago
Your basic point is that this problem is cause by a LACK of regulation and will be fixed by MORE regulation. "These giant tech companies are doing too well, we need to burden them with regulation like utilities (Verizon, AT&T, etc) and that will give competitors a chance." Let me ask you: are you happier with Apple or with AT&T? Apple? Then why are you trying to give Apple incentives to behave more like AT&T?

pfarnsworth 9y ago

I love how people are now all of a sudden defending the "Taxi regulations" as if an artifical monopoly that was serving no one's best interests except for the monopoly was somehow a great thing. It's a lazy argument, especially for HN where old industries with arcane rules are meant to be broken. I guess you don't remember how shitty taxis were pre-Uber, when calling a cab 1 hour before you needed it was required, and you wouldn't know if they would actually come or not. And after waiting 1 hr they didn't come, you would be shit out of luck. Meanwhile, in every city where Uber pops up transportation gets better. Taxi monopolistic laws were meant to be disrupted, and I'm glad Uber has done it.

Kiro 9y ago
I agree but the Uber hate on HN is so strong that no-one will admit the positive impact they've actually had. Would love to see some real counter-arguments though.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  The positive impact was happening without Uber. There had been a variety of ride sharing programs for several year before Uber started, and the rise of smart phones would soon allow for easy charging people for the service. Uber than devoured the market by using rich guy connections to raise money, and ignoring regulations. And that's what people hate.
rock_hard 9y ago
I don't know why you got flagged...your post is spot on!
- majewsky 9y ago
  He didn't get flagged, he got downvoted.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Anti-Uber has never meant pro Taxi. Those two positions are mostly unrelated.
rovek 9y ago
I went to a wedding in the countryside last year (5 miles from a decent town, hardly remote) and was reminded of how things still are outside cities. I literally could not get a taxi from the local firms and had to wait for a guest driving my way to leave naturally. Though Uber etc. still haven't completely solved the attitude problem of drivers who seem to feel they're doing you a favour rather than providing a service.
jameskegel 9y ago
Why is this comment being grayed? Despite the language, this is a legitimate rebuttal. > I love how people are now all of a sudden defending the "Taxi regulations" as if an artifical monopoly that was serving no one's best interests except for the monopoly was somehow a great thing. Conjecture, disregarding. > It's a lazy argument, especially for HN where old industries with arcane rules are meant to be broken. I cannot refute this. > calling a cab 1 hour before you needed it was required, and you wouldn't know if they would actually come or not This is still very true. > after waiting 1 hr they didn't come, you would be out of luck. This is true. > in every city where Uber pops up transportation gets better. This is the only thing I could come close to refuting, but it'd be an argument built wholly on anecdotal evidence. We should not be so easily provoked.
- blowski 9y ago
  The comment seems to be suggesting there are only two possible positions - pro-taxi or pro-Uber. Furthermore, it suggest that HN has taken an aggregate position. In reality, I can be both pro-taxi and pro-Uber, or vice versa. Furthermore there are plenty of Uber defenders as well as attackers here on HN, so suggesting people are "all of a sudden defending taxis" seems a stretch. I agree that the taxi industry had and continues to have many problems, but I don't agree with much of Uber's behaviour either.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
DanBC 9y ago
> you don't remember how shitty taxis were pre-Uber I don't remember that, because I live in a country that doesn't have awful taxis, and where Uber has little to offer except dubious insurance status.
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  You probably never use taxis in Vancouver then and/or you don't understand the value proposition that Uber brings. There are tens of thousands of people in SF alone that now earn money that previously didn't, and customers that have a much better transportation option that they are willing to pay for. https://www.bcbusiness.ca/vancouver-has-fewer-taxis-than-any-other-canadian-city https://www.bcbusiness.ca/vancouver-has-fewer-taxis-than-any...
monksy 9y ago
I think the Uber hate comes from their business practices, and people are reaching to jump on the bandwagon to hate uber at all cost. I think it's been a good service compared with taxis. But we're in this weird double standard, where we tolerate them breaking some rules but ignoring others. (Tolerating the taxi regulations, but violating basic decency [safety, passenger rights, etc])
carapace 9y ago
The problem with Uber isn't that they provide a decent "cab" service, it is that, collectively, they are amoral douche-bags.

rtpg 9y ago

I definitely qgree that safe harbor is important I think the main thing about tech is that it makes accessing the global market easier than ever. Monopolies in one sector can now extremely easily hop into another market. If anything it feels like an accelerated version of the railroad barons It sure feels like antitrust laws could be used effectively. Ultimately monopolies do have a lot of money and lobbying power though. Imagine being big enough to basically absorb the billions in fines from the EU. You're either a bank or Google. How do you fix that apart from ripping the company up into small pieces like with AT&T

ethbro 9y ago
Imho, article is largely missing the bigger point: stifling of innovation. Regulation should be focused on removing FB / Google's ability to unfairly leverage their size to thwart up and coming competitors. Otherwise you simply freeze the status quo and cement FB and Google into unassailable market constants. Sure you can regulate them to keep them from acting poorly, but what's the point if they can still squash the next Facebook or Google? Edit: Curious on thoughts on this, but it doesn't seem to me like a progressive corporate tax rate (including mandatory minimum) based on market share (with the overage dedicated to funding basic research) would be a terrible idea. If you have outsized market share, you're probably receiving more than your fair share of the commons, so reasonable to pay that back.
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  Every time I see that phrase I know the person who said it will never be able to answer this, but I still am tempted to ask: please define "fair share" and who exactly determines it and how.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Fair: an equitable distribution of resources and burdens according to community values and beliefs It's not rocket science. We (humans) use it every day. It's just contextually and subjectively defined by group consensus.

gwenzek 9y ago

I don't think the article advocates for b): > How can these benign, universally loved innovators be stopped from turning into evil, soulless corporate behemoths? Break up companies such as Facebook, Google and Amazon, (...) Or perhaps recognize them as utilities (...) Neither makes sense in most cases. In fact they advocate for c): Tech giants should be treated as classical business. Amazon like a retailer, Uber like a taxi comp, Airbnb like an hotel brand, … For Facebook they talk more about the fact if it was treated as a media company they should keep track of who is running ads and follow regulations on political ads.

HillaryBriss 9y ago

many will disagree with me, but i remain very surprised that these firms have not been hit by a lot more equal opportunity lawsuits from state and federal agencies.

sol_remmy 9y ago

Your basic point is that this problem is cause by a LACK of regulation and will be fixed by MORE regulation. "These giant tech companies are doing too well, we need to burden them with regulation like utilities (Verizon, AT&T, etc) and that will give competitors a chance." Let me ask you: are you happier with Apple or with AT&T? Apple? Then why are you trying to give Apple incentives to behave more like AT&T?