6 ms·
Google, Facebook, Amazon May Be ‘Antitrust Situation’
- anoncoward111 8y agoImagine being so good at delivering value to both users and advertisers that even the President of the United States is jealous of the amount of money you make for his own country and wants to spitefully end all that. Sent from my $100 Android phone bought off Amazon through Google Chrome after my friend told me about it on Whatsapp. Alex Jones never delivered that type of value to me and you are free to listen to his content on his website, which I do from time to time.
- Apocryphon 8y agoAre they truly the best at delivering value, or are they simply good enough that their second-mover advantages, coupled with network effects, prevented potential future entrants from shaking up the market and providing better value? Ask '90s Microsoft that.
- anoncoward111 8y agoMy phone is South Korean. I use an open source desktop operating system developed mostly by French and German volunteers. If anyone ever makes replacements to Android and Whatsapp that are better, I will use them, even if they are North Korean or Siberian or whatever they may be. 90s Microsoft certainly was a big monopoly that has now faced a lot of competition. But I, as a freeloader, sure did write a lot of essays in Word. I just never paid for a copy.
- dbmikus 8y agoTrump definitely speaks like a lunatic, and I can't parse if any of his opinions come from a place other than feeling slighted, but I see the issue with big tech is that they keep buying up or copying and exterminating competitors. Yes, we derive a lot of value from them, but who's to say that we would not have gotten greater value from a proliferation of social services or from Google not directly harming other specialized search products. That line of thinking falls on the EU end of the spectrum, where they value market competition versus the US where they look at things just through the consumer lense. It's hard to say which is better.
- MBCook 8y agoWe’ve had discussions along these lines before on hacker news. There is a definitely a contingent of people, myself included, who think they should’ve been regulated or broken up quite a while ago. Unfortunately that’s not the motivation behind this story. So doesn’t really seem worth discussing now.
- aokiji 8y agoWhat is coordinated censorship by multiple tech giants? What are dark patterns and patenting technology such as a loan desirability ranking based on one's social circle socioeconomic standings? What is crushing your employees under brutal work conditions until they faint? What value do you provide as a giant multinational tech corporation when you are subverting the country where you spawned by opening the door to fifth-column Chinese interest groups? What is the value of a Google top executive demanding that anonymity be destroyed online and elsewhere? For who are you shilling?
- dang 8y agoWe've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- krapp 8y agoTrump isn't jealous of these companies because of the money they make, he's a billionaire himself and probably owns more stock in them than you or I could afford. He believes they're part of a liberal conspiracy to silence him and is using antitrust as a pretense to threaten them.
- aokiji 8y agoIt has been proven that conservatives and supporters of Trump are being censored and shadow-banned. What is your point?
- anoncoward111 8y agoThat is absolutely correct, but you would probably agree that he also wishes to use his political power to bring that revenue stream to an entity or group of entities that are alligned to him in some way. He wouldn't just destroy that revenue stream and let someone else swallow it up. I'm not joking, don't be surprised if some consortium of right-wing businesses start getting subcontracting rights over this stufff
- krapp 8y ago>but you would probably agree that he also wishes to use his political power to bring that revenue stream to an entity or group of entities that are alligned to him in some way Oh, definitely. That's the one thing I trust him to be competent at.
- anoncoward111 8y agoThe classic Trumpian move-- destroy value for others in exchange for personal financial gain, logic be damned.
- Chris_Chambers 8y agoI’m sure you can provide at least two clear past examples of this “Trumpian move”.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- noobermin 8y agoWhat point are you trying to make, also why are you bringing Alex Jones into this story?
- anoncoward111 8y agoAlex Jones was kicked off of all these platforms. Trump is decently close with Alex Jones. It's not a coinsidence that when AJ was kicked off a week or two ago, Trump suddenly came out to say that someone could consider breaking up these companies via Federal action.
- golemiprague 8y agoThe problem with Alex Jones is not the value, it is that facebook, twitter et al are the de facto city square and the only city square of our times and the first amendment should be applied to them like any other public space. It is also not fair that some small bakery was forced to bake a cake for a gay couple wedding against their religion but those big companies get away with discriminating who they serve and who they don't, not even doing some specific thing to an Alex Jones event, just serving him in general. It is even worst because this bakery is a personal business and was forced to actively participate in something against their religion and believes while facebook is a corporation with different people and different believes so nobody can attribute what Alex Jones is saying to someone specific. What Trump is about and always was about is standing against the oppression of the American people by a small elite which apply two different laws to them and the rest of the country.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- noobermin 8y agoPeople are right to be wary of the very monopolistic nature of the web today. Unfortunately, the powers that be are lead by someone who neither understands the law nor is motivated by honest reasons and isn't wise enough to hide it.
- _louisr_ 8y agoDid George Bush or Obama understand in great detail the consequences and intended usage of every law they make a decision about?
- MBCook 8y agoNo one can, the job is too big. But they have lots of advisors to help them understand that and recommend good policies. Also the policies are based on real issues in the law and attempt to correct them. Trump is a self-styled expert in everything (ESPECIALLY business) and doesn’t seem to like outside counsel if it contradicts him. I can’t think of much in the way of “spite laws” that Bush or Obama tried to push. There was the rattling over encryption, but that was about it. Trump has a very strong history going after anyone who disagrees with him or he thinks (correctly or not) makes him look bad. Those two factors combined make all the difference in the world to me.
- richardknop 8y agoNot sure why this is getting downvotes. Gave you +1. I think there hasn’t been a president yet who has at least rudimental understanding of tech and internet. We should be electing more leaders from tech or engineering background into governing positions otherwise people who have no idea how internet works will be making decisions about how to regulate it.
- bdcravens 8y agoShould probably include the full title: "Trump Says Google, Facebook, Amazon May Be ‘Antitrust Situation’" The article is mostly about POTUS's statement and opinion, not a detailed view of whether there are antitrust violations.
- mjevans 8y agoWhile I agree that completely dominating a given platform is probably concern for anti-trust investigation and/or heavy regulations to ensure //regulated access// to that platform, I actually disagree that Google is a monopoly. Microsoft is still pushing Bing, and I think Yahoo exists; and both of those providers also provide free email services (some under different brand names). Apple competes on entire phone platforms, and Android as an operating system for phones is provided free to enable a market place across several different manufacturer's devices; that is likely what's saving //Apple// as a monopoly for mobiles. Amazon for shopping... the Whole Foods horizontal integration may be problematic. I think it depends on how different platforms and services are broken up. It would probably be OK with the correct kind of regulation to ensure that it isn't used as an unfair competitive advantage. In that respect I think Walmart might also have issues. What I think might improve things is more consumer protections, particularly in the form of requiring reasonable cost access to paid support (even for products that are otherwise free). We've heard of users being locked out of their contact address and account data far too often, even for paying or previously paying users.
- solarkraft 8y agoEcosystems, man. Possibly way higher barriers to entry for new players than before. Google partly defeated Microsoft's phone platform just by keeping their services away from it. It's difficult to imagine any less powerful player having any chance. Think of modern consumer applications and how much they depend on technology from Google, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft. They can at many points enforce incompatibility for business reasons. That should probably be disallowed (car makers couldn't really prevent after market companies from producing compatible parts).
- mjevans 8y agoFacebook probably is a monopoly and should have an anti-trust investigation. Mostly for the issue of: if I asked a random person on the street what alternatives existed for Facebook I fully expect that less than 5% would even be able to name a still functioning platform that they had considered using recently. Maybe if you count 'linkedin' as well (though that's supposed to be a different type of platform) or dating sites... Anyway, I dislike how everyone's forgotten how to actually communicate and stay in touch and just assumes that everything and everyone exists on Facebook (as one of the GTAs spoofed: "Life Invader").
- ucaetano 8y ago> Facebook probably is a monopoly A monopoly of...? They key part of a "monopoly" claim is defining the market. Facebook has a monopoly communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on online communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on mobile communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on social interactions? No. Does it have a monopoly on online social interactions? No. Does it have a monopoly on social networks? No. Does it have a monopoly on online social networks? No. Does it have a monopoly on ads? No. Does it have a monopoly on online ads? No. Does it have a monopoly on online ads in social networks? No. Does Facebook have a monopoly on serving ads in an online social network that is blue-themed? No. Does Facebook has a monopoly on a on serving ads in an online social network that is blue-themed and has a feed? Not even that! Does Facebook has a monopoly on a on serving ads in an online social network that is blue-themed and has a feed and is owned by a Harvard dropout? Yes. That is the complication of a monopoly claim, you need to define the market. If you define it too narrowly, you'll always have a monopoly. If you define it too broadly, you'll never have a monopoly.
- IronWolve 8y agoGoogle did lose 2 EU lawsuits, 2.4B for search manipulation and 5 billion for android antitrust. It's not an opinion about Google has tweaked its search, just the scope. We just don't know how big or small google search altering goes. They already proved during the 2016 US elections Google removed negative searches for Democrats. Would really be helpful if someone collected all the google search manipulations. Google at least lets you know if something is removed if its torrent link. I've run into multiple Youtube search issues where I know a video exists, but can't find it easily or at all. Normally its just a dozen pages down. Even with exact titles searches, it can sometimes be extremely difficult.
- crazynick4 8y ago> Google did lose 2 EU lawsuits, 2.4B for search manipulation and 5 billion for android antitrust. > It's not an opinion about Google has tweaked its search, just the scope. I think this is an example of Trump saying the right things for the wrong reason. If you just remove the 'because they don't like me' from his rhetoric, there could be a valid argument there.
- IronWolve 8y agoTrue, I don't think it has been proven that search results against Trump are modified. So Google could absolutely be telling the truth that they don't modify search results about him. But Google does modify its searches, we just don't know to the extent, besides the lawsuits verdicts. That was my point, you can't say they don't modify search results as a blanket statement.
- diegoperini 8y agoI remember someone claiming a few years ago that if you type Egypt or Middle East in different parts of the world, you are shown different results. Some vacation related, some politics related. Unfortunately I can't find it.
- SerLava 8y ago
- mortenjorck 8y agoTimes the word “monopoly” appears in this comment thread (so far): 26 Times the word “monopoly” appears in the article: 0 It’s worth repeating: The Sherman Antitrust Act does not apply only to actors in monopoly positions. Antitrust actions may be taken against businesses engaging in anticompetitive behavior or otherwise restraining trade, even if they don’t control the entire market.
- nickik 8y agoFalse. Modern anti-trust law requires proving harm to consers and that would be incredibly hard with any of those companies.
- singularity2001 8y agoModern anti-trust law -> Current anti-trust law modern has annotations of beneficial progress
- Detry322 8y agoannotations -> connotations If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
- ghostly_s 8y ago'Trump says' are the most important words of the headline, why were they removed?
- s73v3r_ 8y agoProbably because that would cause the comment section to become a huge flamewar.
- MBCook 8y agoThe problem is that that IS the article. This isn’t the justice department or group of bipartisan senators or someone like that saying they think there’s a big problem here. This is 100% “Trump says X“. That’s the only reason this is an article, literally because he said it. So to remove that from the headline seems very disingenuous. (Yes, others have suggested the monopoly/abuse of power angle before, but that’s not why we’re discussing it today).
- justcorrect 8y agoIn the 90's, Democrats wanted to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" in response to Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's rise in popularity on talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine was in place at the FCC for parts of five decades, from 1949 to 1987. It will be interesting to see if interest is raised in reapplying a Fairness Doctrine today towards these companies, which may well need to be reclassified in some instances as communication utilities to be regulated. I personally think this is more likely for Facebook and Twitter than Google, but who knows. Another bigger situation could come into play if the infrastructure providers (AWS, Azure) start causing antitrust problems, but thankfully they do not seem to be a big issue yet.
- jondubois 8y agoAs much as people dislike Trump, it's nice that the US has a president who is not afraid to stand up to big corporations. Just drawing attention to this oligopoly is a good step in the right direction.
- solarkraft 8y agoScreaming at somebody who wasn't nice to you one day (and taking their money turn things further in their favor) isn't exactly standing up to them.
- golemiprague 8y agoWhy not, it is exactly what should be done. People are mad because he turns out to be one of the best presidents ever, he is just doing the right thing in almost every aspect. He is actually revolutionary rather than conservative, I am sure if he ran as a democrat he would be celebrated by the media.
- Chris_Chambers 8y agoBarely anyone dislikes Trump.
- throwaway_trust 8y agoAll of them are too big and we need someone like Teddy Roosevelt going on trust busting crusade. This is the second position of POTUS that I agree with (first being merit based immigration, as I'm myself an immigrant). In a weird sense, I think POTUS may achieve it as he is all about anti-establishment. Now why do I think they deserve Sherman Antitrust investigations (and IANAL). All of them have control over people's different dimensions of data that nobody has. - Amazon: With acquisition of Whole Foods they control retail like nobody. Yes, Walmart is trying to make a dent. So does best buy. But they have pretty much monopoly over e-books business when it comes to publishing. Apple already had eBooks settlement. - Google: They make or break Internet with control over gateway (Chrome), Search (gatekeeper, and promoting their own content) and monetization (Google Doubleclick/Adx is majority of share in ad-tech market for on-walled garden s, good luck competing against it). Given their control and 1B users across multiple platforms they constantly engage in anti-competitive behavior. Read about rise of header bidding and how AdX used to anti-competitive in ad-tech. Google's ad-tech division needs to thoroughly investigated over anti-competitive behavior. Secondly, Android is free but Google has iron grip over Android using play store. I think gated App Stores are inherently anti-competitive and not in best interests of users and developers. OS should allow multiple app stores and DoJ should go after this. Fortnite already tried to highlight this issue. Facebook - I think Facebook might be spared as for social they are not the only platform. But given their data scandals Apple - As I said app stores are inherently anti-competitive. Same thing applies here like Android. Anyway, these companies can make or break business with their anti-competitive practices. As discussed in another comment, Sherman Antitrust Act doesn't apply in monopoly positions but against businesses that may stifle overall competitive behavior. I strongly believe these companies are even more scarier in telcos as they are wolves in sheep's clothing and always try to play nice.
- faitswulff 8y ago> Android is free but Google has iron grip over Android using play store I think this is undeniable in practice, but Google could claim that because Android also has F-Droid and the like, it allows multiple app stores.
- MBCook 8y ago
- hugh4life 8y agoI'm not a big fan of where the tech giants have brought the internet... the internet today has become too much of a walled garden and there is not enough competition and there's not enough cooperation between entities. But we live in a rather chaotic time geopolitically and I think it's good to have these gigantic entities in our country that other countries are wary of crossing too much.
- hugh4life 8y agoOne thing the tech giants could do is collude to compete greater with one another... there are too many advantages to the dominance in an market segment and so they don't bother competing with one another. Google+ was a bit half-assed... and it seems like they don't care to compete in social networking anymore. Facebook is doing something with video but it doesn't compare with youtube. I would like to see google attempt to create a social network comparable with facebook and I'd like to see facebook attempt to create a search engine or video sharing service comparable to google or youtube. Rather than break them up, force them to compete with each other in each other's dominant market. And then if we get a super giant then break it up.
- ravenstine 8y ago> I would like to see google attempt to create a social network comparable with facebook and I'd like to see facebook attempt to create a search engine or video sharing service comparable to google or youtube. Forgive me but... how is that better than getting companies to spin off divisions or to simply not do anticompetitive things? Google is marginally better than Facebook, and what you're suggesting seems to be a switcharoo between two turd sandwiches where effectively nothing changes. Facebook could compete in the video space(god help us), but that doesn't mean we're going to get better video services.
- ArtWomb 8y agoWhile I think it's a topic worthy of informed debate. Looking at EU's antitrust decision against Google, the requirements to include competitors listings in results does not seem to have made much difference. Yelp's revenue streams are orthogonal and complementary to say, the results via local searches in Google Maps. Information is not a zero-sum game. Much more urgent would be antitrust inquiry into consumer credit systems. Mortgage applicants are at the mercy of an opaque, antiquated credit score apparatus. While a majority of small businesses, professional services, and merchants prefer to be paid in check or cash in the US. For large transactions, this is a headwind against efficient commerce. The fee structure is simply too dashed high. FICO’s Lock on Mortgage Credit Scores Comes Under Fire https://www.wsj.com/articles/ficos-lock-on-mortgage-credit-scores-comes-under-fire-1521019801 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ficos-lock-on-mortgage-credit-s...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- payne92 8y agoOne of my most downvoted HN comments was on an article where Zuckerberg struggled to name a Facebook computer. I said: “Facebook‘s biggest competitor is the US government.” I feel that’s even more true now, and the same comment applies to Google and Amazon. It’s not a coincidence these firms have massive lobbying efforts.
- nickik 8y agoNon of these companies can be sued in terms of anti-trust because since the new definition of that law by Richard Posner its very hard to come up with a story tjat would make it credible.
- ilaksh 8y agoWhat I think will happen is that we will see a different type of decentralization become popular. Common platforms are needed or convenient. Right now these platforms are generally controlled by large companies with something approaching monopolies in various markets. For example, Amazon provides services and a destination that help people sell things. The problem is Amazon is a company that also sells things and is trying to maximize profits. So vendors are competing with the company running their vending platform. Uber provides a platform for people to make money with their cars and to get around. It has the large network that drivers and riders need. But they are also so dominant that there is very little competition and so they can price things unfairly. My belief is that A) we do need common platforms but B) the monopoly platforms are unfair and C) decentralized technologies can provide common platforms that aren't controlled by monopolies. So what I think would make sense would be for drivers or even self-driving car companies to use decentralized protocols to make one large network and platform. That platform is open source and decentralized and used by many competing companies that want to provide transportation services. This allows companies access to a large pool of drivers and riders and a core technology implementation, but does not relinquish control to one company, so we can preserve competition and fairness.