4 ms·

I'm happy that antitrust is being explored. I do think free markets need to be protected, and the last few decades attitude of "if it's good for consumers it's

I'm happy that antitrust is being explored. I do think free markets need to be protected, and the last few decades attitude of "if it's good for consumers it's legal" is short sighted. Something can be good for consumers right now, but stifle competition and be bad for consumers eventually.

writepub 7y ago
We're IN the phase of big tech being bad for consumers right now.
- User23 7y ago
  I feel like my relationship with Amazon is a pretty solid value proposition for me as a consumer of both retail and AWS. It helps that Amazon is less overtly political than the other tech giants. Obviously their employees lean left, but with a few notable exceptions like refusing to sell Confederate Battle Flags they have been quite good about allowing different views to be expressed by content creators. I'm starting to have my doubts about Google though. The quality of their search has been noticeably deteriorating, as has the gmail spam filter. The main reason I haven't switched to another service is that I didn't use a custom domain for my address. They are also overtly political with their YouTube demonitizing.
  - at-fates-hands 7y ago
    > they have been quite good about allowing different views to be expressed by content creators. Not really. They've been removing, censoring and burying conservative authors for a while now. If you do some googling, you'll find plenty of articles about it.
ergothus 7y ago
> "if it's good for consumers it's legal" is short sighted It's worse - the attitude has been "if it can theoretically lower prices in the short-term it must be good for consumers" - they've totally ignored all the perils involved in large scale mergers.
jtr_47 7y ago
They should first take a look at the Telco/Cable companies and the lack of competition and upgrades. Plus they need to look at the laws these companies are writing to prevent municipal Fibre etc. from seeing the light of day too.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  The cable companies are a natural monopoly, just like electricity providers et al. It doesn't make sense for two companies to lay two separate sets of cable in the ground. ISP competition isn't going to happen, at least not in the wired/cable space. They need to be regulated with that reality in mind.
  - ngngngng 7y ago
    I disagree, I am a customer of a unique not quite municipal network called Utopia. I pay Utopia a monthly fee for my dedicated fiber connection, and I have about 10 ISPs to choose from offering speeds of up to 10Gb/s. It feels like this model is spreading like wildfire here in Utah. I hope it catches on elsewhere.
    - wmf 7y ago
      That's fake competition. The fiber is still a natural monopoly and needs to be regulated to prevent the owner from imposing evil upon all the "competing" ISPs.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      Discussions about monopolies aside, why do it this way? What service do the ISPs actually provide? Wouldn't it make more sense for Utopia to just provide internet, given that they run and are directly charging you for the infrastructure?
  - opportune 7y ago
    Natural monopolies are supposed to be more regulated than telcos currently are. There's a word for it, it's called a utility
jaredklewis 7y ago
Not sure how much there is for the Justice department to explore on this front. The courts have been relatively consistent in their interpretation of "consumer harm," and that interpretation is decidedly narrow. I think congress will need to get involved if we are going to relax the requirements on consumer harm for anti-trust cases.
- ngngngng 7y ago
  This is only recently. The Antitrust Paradox shifted this thinking after being published in 1978, and now it's considered by many in power to be the bible of antitrust enforcement. There's no reason that can't shift though.

writepub 7y ago

We're IN the phase of big tech being bad for consumers right now.

User23 7y ago
I feel like my relationship with Amazon is a pretty solid value proposition for me as a consumer of both retail and AWS. It helps that Amazon is less overtly political than the other tech giants. Obviously their employees lean left, but with a few notable exceptions like refusing to sell Confederate Battle Flags they have been quite good about allowing different views to be expressed by content creators. I'm starting to have my doubts about Google though. The quality of their search has been noticeably deteriorating, as has the gmail spam filter. The main reason I haven't switched to another service is that I didn't use a custom domain for my address. They are also overtly political with their YouTube demonitizing.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  > they have been quite good about allowing different views to be expressed by content creators. Not really. They've been removing, censoring and burying conservative authors for a while now. If you do some googling, you'll find plenty of articles about it.

ergothus 7y ago

> "if it's good for consumers it's legal" is short sighted It's worse - the attitude has been "if it can theoretically lower prices in the short-term it must be good for consumers" - they've totally ignored all the perils involved in large scale mergers.

jtr_47 7y ago

They should first take a look at the Telco/Cable companies and the lack of competition and upgrades. Plus they need to look at the laws these companies are writing to prevent municipal Fibre etc. from seeing the light of day too.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
The cable companies are a natural monopoly, just like electricity providers et al. It doesn't make sense for two companies to lay two separate sets of cable in the ground. ISP competition isn't going to happen, at least not in the wired/cable space. They need to be regulated with that reality in mind.
- ngngngng 7y ago
  I disagree, I am a customer of a unique not quite municipal network called Utopia. I pay Utopia a monthly fee for my dedicated fiber connection, and I have about 10 ISPs to choose from offering speeds of up to 10Gb/s. It feels like this model is spreading like wildfire here in Utah. I hope it catches on elsewhere.
  - wmf 7y ago
    That's fake competition. The fiber is still a natural monopoly and needs to be regulated to prevent the owner from imposing evil upon all the "competing" ISPs.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Discussions about monopolies aside, why do it this way? What service do the ISPs actually provide? Wouldn't it make more sense for Utopia to just provide internet, given that they run and are directly charging you for the infrastructure?
- opportune 7y ago
  Natural monopolies are supposed to be more regulated than telcos currently are. There's a word for it, it's called a utility

jaredklewis 7y ago

Not sure how much there is for the Justice department to explore on this front. The courts have been relatively consistent in their interpretation of "consumer harm," and that interpretation is decidedly narrow. I think congress will need to get involved if we are going to relax the requirements on consumer harm for anti-trust cases.

ngngngng 7y ago
This is only recently. The Antitrust Paradox shifted this thinking after being published in 1978, and now it's considered by many in power to be the bible of antitrust enforcement. There's no reason that can't shift though.