45 ms·
Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In
- mogadsheu 7y agoThe potential cases against the large tech firms are all coming in at the same time. I wonder what could be driving it. If they move foward, I hope that the nature of the results are good for the public (i.e. preventing anti-competitive behavior)
- icxa 7y agoGovernment finally had it with the amount of power they have over culture and messing with their 3 letter agency initiatives? I am one of those pessimistic folk who views everything on a geopolitical stage as a power struggle, so..
- Apocryphon 7y agoFrom the left, populist economists calling for Big Tech to be broken up for monopoly and tax dodging. From the right, culture warriors calling for regulation so their chosen avatars of free speech are not de-platformed. From the bottom, consumer advocates angry at the privacy abuses of large corporations, not to mention increasingly shoddy quality caused by lack of competition. From the top, as you mentioned- tech companies flouting state power, including in the realm of state surveillance. 十面埋伏 - attack from ten directions.
- xxxpupugo 7y agoWhich means they are legitimately too big and too powerful that affects every faction of the political spectrum.
- colpabar 7y agoThis is the best way to look at it. No matter what your political leanings, you have to admit maybe it's not the best thing if these companies can have such enormous influence over such an enormous percent of the entire human population.
- math-fan 7y ago十伏埋面 - ten volt buried surface
- not_a_moth 7y agoHoly smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.
- jyrkesh 7y agoSince a while. I'm definitively not a right-winger, but I increasingly have to align myself with folks whose speech I hate in order to defend free speech against folks I agree with on issues. Too many on the left are gleeful at the thought of deplatforming any and all of their detractors.
- remarkEon 7y agoIf we're being honest here, "Free Speech" has never really been a true philosophical maxim in this country. It's been a useful tool to acquire political and then, once acquired, it's jettisoned as a principle.
- ARandomerDude 7y ago> tech platforms push left-wing biases That's half of it. The other half is suppression of right-slanted content. The issue is monopoly status + pushing one side + suppressing the other side.
- vturner 7y agoAnd the down votes prove your point... Incredible.
- scarmig 7y agoI love how downvotes on Hacker News have become a totalitarian attack on free speech.
- PavlovsCat 7y agoThey're proof of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. That's enough.
- howard941 7y agoIt's just in time for the 2020 election cycle. I'd love to share your hope but undoing 20 years of Bork [0] will take more than unofficial talks with Apple and FB. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antitrust-was-defined-by-robert-bork-i-cannot-overstate-his-influence/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antit...
- wybiral 7y agoAs far as Apple goes, I'm not sure. But Facebook and Google have been walking in this direction from their own behavior regarding consumer data and omnipresence online.
- studentrob 7y ago> I wonder what could be driving it. Redirecting people's anger for Comcast, and this admin's failure to maintain net neutrality despite protest from both sides [1], towards something else. [1] https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&limit=1&sort=top&show=t1_d5tn1eg https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&lim...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Havoc 7y agoNot MS? They're all kinda up to the same shenanigans really
- Apocryphon 7y agoDouble jeopardy?
- anbop 7y agoIn case this isn't a joke, double jeopardy in the United States applies only to criminal cases, and two antitrust cases against one company need not necessarily be the same offense.
- manfredo 7y agoDoes Microsoft really have any monopolies? They have a big OS market share, but operating systems have become less and less relevant as mobile computing grows. Same deal with office. Bing is nowhere near the market share as google. Azure competes with AWS and others. Xbox competes with Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft store competes with Steam. IE and edge are also being beaten by Chrome. I think the argument that Microsoft has a monopoly is much less feasible. One acquaintance of mine that works at MS humorously remarked on the irony of situation along these lines, "Back in the day Microsoft was the Big Bad. But now we're not big in social media, we're not big in advertising or search. All these other companies are taking the heat now - not for our lack of trying to get into these spaces, though (laughs)."
- stcredzero 7y agoDoes Microsoft really have any monopolies? What's the difference between a monopoly/almost-monopoly and a really deep "moat?" "...All these other companies are taking the heat now - not for our lack of trying to get into these spaces, though (laughs)." We're #2. We try harder.
- Havoc 7y ago>Same deal with office. Excel? I'm in the finance world and I can say with confidence that they've got 100% market share. We use google sheet too. Every day even....for tracking everyone's QuizOfTheDay scores. Great track but not even close to Excel replacement.
- dannykwells 7y agoSurprised to not see Amazon on here, esp. given DJT's hatred of Bezos. But maybe they're saving the best for last. Certainly would not be surprising given Amazon's developing vertical monopoly on all things bought and sold.
- devy 7y agoAmazon is on the list. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20087732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20087732
- dannykwells 7y agoAh ok. Well there we go. Let the fireworks begin.
- studentrob 7y agoAnd Netflix is not, probably because Hastings once said net neutrality is no longer their primary battle. IOW, they will pay to play. Disgusting. The selections make this a transparent move.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dralley 7y agoNetflix is nowhere even remotely close to being a monopoly.
- studentrob 7y agoI agree that Netflix dominating does not make them a monopoly. No more than Google or Facebook.
- dralley 7y agoNetflix is far less critical, and has far less marketshare (as a proportion of the general population), and far more competitors than either Google or Facebook.
- Egraveline 7y agoI guess we'll see how this plays out. I would of course like to see anti competitive behavior be minimized, but how they will go about that I'm not sure. Even if they are broken up, I doubt we will see much improvement for lowering the barrier of entry for these industries. I would like to hear what other users' thoughts are about what to do to prevent anti competitive tactics without regulating the market too heavily.
- WalterBright 7y agoJust recall what happened to Standard Oil. SO's market share continued to decline throughout the anti-trust trial against them. Rockefeller was unable to stem the tide of nimbler competitors. What happens is when companies exceed a certain size, the inefficiencies of central planning tend to paralyze them and they fail to adapt to changing circumstances, and go into decline.
- WalterBright 7y agoIn my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon, and Walmart is the underdog. It's almost as if the theory that monopolies inevitably grow to take over the world has serious problems :-)
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoFor both IBM and Microsoft, I would argue that anti-trust cases at least contributed to their fall from the top. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/15/business/us-vsibm.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/15/business/us-vsibm.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- WalterBright 7y agoIBM's fall happened long after the anti-trust action against them. It's Microsoft that tipped them over, not government regulators, and IBM made one disastrous mistake after another, starting with the PS/2. While MS was convicted of anti-trust, there wasn't much of any action taken against them. The reasons for them slipping would make for an interesting book.
- jhayward 7y agoIBMs fall began with the PC, which they made an open design explicitly because of anti-trust pressures. They lost control of the design and the market on PCs, which led to the rise of, well, most of the market since then. Your comments are wrong enough to be attempts at revision of history.
- WalterBright 7y ago> IBMs fall began with the PC, IBM was enormously successful with the PC, so successful that IBM was assumed throughout the 80's that they would continue to utterly dominate the desktop market. (See the humorous 1984 Apple ad for what people thought of IBM and the PC at the time.) Everyone quaked in their boots when a new PC was imminent. > which they made an open design explicitly because of anti-trust pressures. I haven't heard that before in histories of the PC I've read. The way I read it was IBM made it open to cut costs and because they didn't think the PC would be a big market. Additionally, IBM closed the design of the later PS/2 and fenced it in with patents in order to continue dominating the PC market and fend off clones, which contradicts the idea that such behavior would entice anti-trust action. Do you have a reference for your version?
- cljs-js-eval 7y agoI'm glad we're finally taking anti-trust seriously, but this timing is incredibly suspicious. Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start taking steps to limit our own? A good, plausibly deniable soft power attack would be to make an antitrust case, present it to the feds with the work already done, and let them do their thing now that they basically have to take action or look foolish. No malicious actors involved, except for the people who choose to trigger the audit at the opportune moment.
- YjSe2GMQ 7y agoShitpost: do all the things bad for stock markets at once. Tariff wars, not lowering interest rates despite inverted yield curve, antitrust against large players.
- JohnFen 7y ago> Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start taking steps to limit our own? I don't see this as taking steps to limit our own tech at all.
- studentrob 7y agoUnsurprising. The government needs to appease the public after killing net neutrality. And, now that ISPs don't need to follow net neutrality, the regional broadband monopolies are free to zero-rate their own video services like AT&T openly does [1]. Next they can throttle Netflix, charge them a premium, and pass costs to the consumer without taking any sort of financial hit for doing so. [1] https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-the-old-net-neutrality-rules/ https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-t...
- lucasmullens 7y agoThis seems unrelated. What does this have to do with net neutrality?
- studentrob 7y agoFair question. IMO this is the government trying to appease the public after they refused to maintain net neutrality, despite overwhelming public support for the policy. I've edited my comment to make that clear.
- twblalock 7y agoI have not heard anyone complain in person about the government killing net neutrality. The general public is not harboring resentment about it.
- dantheman 7y agoYeah, I mean net neutrality lasted all of one year -- there wasn't a problem and there still isn't a problem. Perhaps one day net neutrality will be an issue but it's not one now. The issue that local governments granted monopolies to cable companies and telcos -- that's the true problem.
- studentrob 7y ago> there wasn't a problem Throttling traffic to certain websites [1] is not a problem? The reason net neutrality policy came into being is ISPs were beginning to violate it [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-int... [2] https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/expla...
- bondolo 7y agoDisappointed that the telecom media conglomerates aren't getting more scrutiny.
- studentrob 7y agoAgreed. Net neutrality needs to be an election issue in 2020. Red/blue agree. The most upvoted comment ever removed from t_d was about NN [1] [2]. [1] https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&limit=1&sort=top&show=t1_d5tn1eg https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&lim... [2] https://revddit.com/r/the_donald https://revddit.com/r/the_donald
- root_axis 7y agoHuh? red & blue definitely don't agree on NN. I know some might point to poll numbers that suggest a majority of republicans support NN, but its important to remember that republicans are ideologically opposed to politicians that support NN. This is similar to how a majority of republicans support universal background checks for firearms but nobody suggests that "red/blue agree" on this issue because, despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks.
- studentrob 7y agoWhat is your evidence? I cited mine above. People who understand NN support it because it only enables entrenched interests to get more subscription fees from customers. The strong arm is regional ISP broadband monopolies. Through them, a slew of services can be forced to pass costs on to consumers. And, by the way, this map [1] is about to feature one fewer "competitor", [1] https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-Internet-Service-Provider-State-by-State-1024x731-1.png https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-In...
- root_axis 7y ago> What is your evidence? I cited mine above. My evidence is the congressional record which indicates republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose NN and democratic politicians overwhelmingly support it. I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence; it is at best an anecdote, and one of dubious credibility IMO.
- Animats 7y agoWatch them start sucking up to Trump to make this stop.
- goodfight 7y agoHighly unlikely. Rage clicks drive their ad revenue.
- losteric 7y agoAnd not Comcast, Walmart, AT&T? ... I wonder why
- appstateguy 7y agoTo be fair, they tried to go after AT&T to kill the Time Warner deal (because they own CNN), but the judge basically threw out the case.
- djflutt3rshy 7y agoGotta give money to the winning team... Alphabet: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000067823&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000067823&cy... Apple: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021754&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021754&cy... Amazon: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000023883&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000023883&cy... Facebook: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cy... --- Comcast: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000461&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000461&cy... Walmart: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000367&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000367&cy... AT&T: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000076&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000076&cy...
- scribu 7y agoIt's interesting that every company in that list (except Walmart) had a massive spike in contributions to the blue team starting in 2016.
- noelsusman 7y agoTo be clear, it's illegal for corporations to give money directly to federal candidates. This is a tally of donations from employees of those companies, which makes this a function of workforce ideological leanings more than anything else.
- studentrob 7y ago
- partingshots 7y agoWhen tech companies become collectible trading cards. Clearly this is the best timeline. On a more serious note, I hope the government gets to the telecom, oil, tobacco, military arms, and financial industries too at some point...
- thefounder 7y agoRant: But I thought the EU just wants to punish all the good US companies. Now DOJ and FCC?
- october_sky 7y agoThe WP reported that Rep Cicilline said the "Internet is broken". I agree -- because the ISPs broke the internet, and Congress is letting the FCC allow that. Why aren't they fixing that?
- wdewind 7y agoThis is the part where the people who brought us PRISM tell us how the real problem is facebook and they are the solution. Ok.
- vkou 7y agoThe FTC and the DOJ brought us PRISM?
- at-fates-hands 7y agoConsidering FB just handed over a private citizens data to a convicted hacker simply because he requested it, I would say I'm pretty happy about this development.
- fyoving 7y agoAllow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to any of these corporations. This whole thing is terribly misguided, there is a long list of companies and markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny and these tech companies if they are on that list then they are at the very bottom of it. The real drag on the economy are the high prices of healthcare and housing, there is also the case that ISPs have obvious monopolies and are providing inferior products and services and the list goes on. The role of the media here shouldn't be ignored, they coined the term "big tech" to conjure negative associations and they continuously publish alarmist coverage about any combination of these firms, they also stand to benefit if any enforcement action were to occur.
- Meekro 7y agoVisa and Mastercard have a pretty effective duopoly, too! Their fees and chargeback procedures are a drag on the entire economy. Getting banned by them effectively kills your ability to accept payments, and many legal but politically unpopular businesses find themselves in the crosshairs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 7y agoIs that right? I thought there were several payment service providers and interchange networks.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoVisa/MC/Amex/Discover for Americans, with Visa being far in the lead.
- mailslot 7y ago
- bitxbit 7y agoI realize this is probably not a popular opinion but Amazon, Google and Facebook are natural monopolies in the businesses they operate in. That is to say the optimal market structure in almost all internet businesses is high concentration with a single organization controlling +80% of market share. So breaking up these organizations doesn’t necessarily solve the problems we are facing today. This is not an antitrust issue. Economically speaking, it will likely be impossible to prove that someone like Amazon behaved in a anti-competitive manner. Same goes for Google. Facebook is the only one I can see broken up largely due to all the negative publicity.
- Nasrudith 7y agoThose markets are pretty "winner takes most". Not quite sure if I would call it a monopoly per say as anyone can compete but few can scale close. I would expect most would agree the network effect serves them well - although all may fall in the face of a new competitor who actually manages to be "better" - especially if they do something stupid.
- tigerlily 7y agoI can't log out of Facebook on Firefox, FB seems to have bugged the dropdown containing the log-out button so it loads forever instead of appearing :(
- chiefalchemist 7y agoSo the companies that have more or less sprung up out of nowhere are...to blame for the economic stagnation of the middle class over the last 40 to 50 years? Pardon the editorial but here we go again, politicians pinning the tail on the wrong donkey (i.e., spinning root causes out of symptoms and correlation); the voters will fall for it, and five to ten years down the road we'll all realize we wasted our time (as the root causes further strengthened their stranglehold).
- otohp 7y agoI think this might be because of the right wing of the Republican party that thinks that Google/Facebook etc are unfairly censoring their point of view. This action might be designed to cut them down to size.
- macawfish 7y agoKnow what else is a drag on the economy? Banks and their high interest loans.
- 75dvtwin 7y agoI would like to see Paypal added to the list. Although, part of this monopoly is a very high regulatory barrier of entry for Paypal competition. But they should look if paypal engages into practices 'steer' regulators (or politicians) to not to allow others in. I also thought about Ebay monopoly, however we have newEgg and Amazon, and unless they are setting up barriers for others to entry, or fixing prices, or coordinating to black-list certain business/consumers -- I doubt that they will be looked at.
- logicchains 7y agoThe Chinese government must be slathering at the mouth about this. Assuming there are some inherent advantages to large tech companies (a collection of smaller companies can't achieve the same economy of scale as one big one), then if America breaks up its large tech companies it will be the perfect opportunity for Chinese ones to fill their place. This would not only expand China's soft power but also their ability to monitor global information flows. Given that much recent development in deep learning is also funded by the deep pockets of monopolistic tech companies, breaking them up (and removing this surplus profit) would slow down US AI development relative to China.
- logicchains 7y agoTo the downvoters, I'm curious why you think America weakening its largest tech companies wouldn't help China? The fact that people are calling for breaking up large tech companies suggests they have an unfair advantage over small companies (otherwise they wouldn't need to be broken up), so why wouldn't large Chinese tech companies have an advantage over small, broken up American companies?
- peterwwillis 7y agoThis is literally politicians co-opting popular rage to make themselves look good, and everyone here is stroking themselves because their old tech fantasies aren't cool anymore (and everyone loves a good car crash). There are so many horrible companies in the world that are actually anti-competitive, but this is the force of evil that needs to be dealt with? An ad company, a consumer products company, a social media company, and an incorporeal futuristic version of Walmart? The last one is perhaps the most applicable, the rest are just pointless makers of gadgets nobody actually needs, like wanting to break up Hasbro.
- IlegCowcat 7y agoMore regulation just makes it more difficult for smaller companies to comply. The giants will just expand their legal departments.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- UglycupRawky 7y agoAdvertisers, and others, could be paying higher prices due to market dominance, while users of so-called free services could be experiencing lower quality offerings with reduced innovation and variety, as well as excessive data appropriation. These effects, and others, would constitute reduced consumer welfare.