4 ms·

Would you argue they should be broken up? Asking honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion. On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for

by axaxs 8y ago

Would you argue they should be broken up? Asking honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion. On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. On the other, the barrier to entry has become too high for anyone to make a dent, giving them alone effective control over whether or not your company succeeds.

echelon 8y ago
Yes! A million times yes. Google wields too much control and is forcing the evolution of technology to further their grasp. They reach into every sector of technology, and every play they make deepens their moat. Look at how fast they spin up new products to see if they can claw into a new space. They move mountains if they sense they can grapple something new, and if it doesn't work out they tear it down without considering the users. It isn't about the individual - they want total control. Google is 90's Microsoft's Embrace/Extend/Extinguish executed to perfection. (See my thread from yesterday [1] where I argue these points as they pertain to the app store.) I'm going to talk with my local lawmakers. I don't know what leverage I have, but I'll be damned if I sit on the sidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245
bytematic 8y ago
Not really success if they are harming people.
minimaul 8y ago
Most definitely yes. Truly independent governance of separate projects within Google at the very least, but ideally totally separate legal entities that are carefully regulated and monitored to ensure they're not giving each other preferential treatment.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. For better or worse, this is how it has to be for the market economy to function well in a society. A company can be successful up to a point - they cannot be allowed to win. The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large.
- deltron3030 8y ago
  >The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large. OTOH it's like a standard that you can build upon if it's foundational communication infrastructure (channels, touch points). This means that stability on lower levels facilitates competition on higher levels. As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. It shouldn't be allowed to scrap services users depend on though, this would be a good organic regulator.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Standards like these may be proposed by a single entity, but they're not controlled by it. The problem with amp4email isn't that it makes everyone part of Google (though I'm willing to bet it'll ultimately imply all MUAs will end up having to embed Chrome engine). The problem is with Google using its near-monopoly position to push a "standard" that makes e-mail serve its users less, and serve companies seeking to exploit those users more.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    > As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. I disagree. At some point, such a company effectively becomes the same as a government. I think that's hugely problematic.
JohnFen 8y ago
> I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. I don't hear many people talking about punishing companies for their success. I hear a lot of people talking about punishing people for their abuse, though.
kevingadd 8y ago
The problem with Google is not their success, the problem is that they both have and abuse monopoly power. If they don't want to get targeted they shouldn't abuse it.
rjf72 8y ago
I think there's a far more beneficial alternative that doesn't have the effect of, like you mentioned, punishing companies for success. Instead of trying to break up the biggest players which tends to ultimately just result in them reforming, officially or not, instead create rules specifically designed to make it vastly easier for smaller players to succeed. There are a countless number of ways to do this. The network effect "free" user generated content platforms (YouTube, Facebook, etc) are the low hanging fruit here. The reason they have sustainable monopolies is because they have exclusive use of the user generated content on their platform. This is really easy to fix. Require that companies beyond a certain scale (1 million users perhaps?) that make user generated content freely available default to free use + attribution licenses for that content, unless users specifically opt-out on a per piece basis. And furthermore mandate that companies provide a means of easily accessing said free use content, such as through an API. Also require that users be able to 'remotely publish' content to the site again, through something such as an API. And finally prohibit companies from censoring discussion of competing sites except in obvious cases of abuse such as e.g. automated spam. There - problem solved. Now you can create an e.g. Facebook competitor where people can keep their exact same friends (and even talk to the ones still on Facebook) except gain whatever benefits the new platform has to offer. Similarly for something such as a YouTube competitor where now you'd be able to seed yourself with what would likely be the vast majority of the user generated content from YouTube. You might also want to add a rule that sites cannot clone content from sites smaller than they are. Again the idea is to create unique incentives for users to try new sites. You'd get access to most of the content you already have from big site + whatever unique content the smaller site offers. And, just like that, you now have created massive competition with minimal direct 'punishment' of the existing behemoths.
auslander 8y ago
Skynet. Resistance is futile.

by axaxs 8y ago

echelon 8y ago

Yes! A million times yes. Google wields too much control and is forcing the evolution of technology to further their grasp. They reach into every sector of technology, and every play they make deepens their moat. Look at how fast they spin up new products to see if they can claw into a new space. They move mountains if they sense they can grapple something new, and if it doesn't work out they tear it down without considering the users. It isn't about the individual - they want total control. Google is 90's Microsoft's Embrace/Extend/Extinguish executed to perfection. (See my thread from yesterday [1] where I argue these points as they pertain to the app store.) I'm going to talk with my local lawmakers. I don't know what leverage I have, but I'll be damned if I sit on the sidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245

bytematic 8y ago

Not really success if they are harming people.

minimaul 8y ago

Most definitely yes. Truly independent governance of separate projects within Google at the very least, but ideally totally separate legal entities that are carefully regulated and monitored to ensure they're not giving each other preferential treatment.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. For better or worse, this is how it has to be for the market economy to function well in a society. A company can be successful up to a point - they cannot be allowed to win. The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large.

deltron3030 8y ago
>The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large. OTOH it's like a standard that you can build upon if it's foundational communication infrastructure (channels, touch points). This means that stability on lower levels facilitates competition on higher levels. As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. It shouldn't be allowed to scrap services users depend on though, this would be a good organic regulator.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Standards like these may be proposed by a single entity, but they're not controlled by it. The problem with amp4email isn't that it makes everyone part of Google (though I'm willing to bet it'll ultimately imply all MUAs will end up having to embed Chrome engine). The problem is with Google using its near-monopoly position to push a "standard" that makes e-mail serve its users less, and serve companies seeking to exploit those users more.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. I disagree. At some point, such a company effectively becomes the same as a government. I think that's hugely problematic.

JohnFen 8y ago

> I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. I don't hear many people talking about punishing companies for their success. I hear a lot of people talking about punishing people for their abuse, though.

kevingadd 8y ago

The problem with Google is not their success, the problem is that they both have and abuse monopoly power. If they don't want to get targeted they shouldn't abuse it.

rjf72 8y ago

I think there's a far more beneficial alternative that doesn't have the effect of, like you mentioned, punishing companies for success. Instead of trying to break up the biggest players which tends to ultimately just result in them reforming, officially or not, instead create rules specifically designed to make it vastly easier for smaller players to succeed. There are a countless number of ways to do this. The network effect "free" user generated content platforms (YouTube, Facebook, etc) are the low hanging fruit here. The reason they have sustainable monopolies is because they have exclusive use of the user generated content on their platform. This is really easy to fix. Require that companies beyond a certain scale (1 million users perhaps?) that make user generated content freely available default to free use + attribution licenses for that content, unless users specifically opt-out on a per piece basis. And furthermore mandate that companies provide a means of easily accessing said free use content, such as through an API. Also require that users be able to 'remotely publish' content to the site again, through something such as an API. And finally prohibit companies from censoring discussion of competing sites except in obvious cases of abuse such as e.g. automated spam. There - problem solved. Now you can create an e.g. Facebook competitor where people can keep their exact same friends (and even talk to the ones still on Facebook) except gain whatever benefits the new platform has to offer. Similarly for something such as a YouTube competitor where now you'd be able to seed yourself with what would likely be the vast majority of the user generated content from YouTube. You might also want to add a rule that sites cannot clone content from sites smaller than they are. Again the idea is to create unique incentives for users to try new sites. You'd get access to most of the content you already have from big site + whatever unique content the smaller site offers. And, just like that, you now have created massive competition with minimal direct 'punishment' of the existing behemoths.

auslander 8y ago

Skynet. Resistance is futile.