4 ms·
I find that there's a huge amount of discussion that basically amounts to definitional disagreements. I'll cede definitions like "monopoly" for the sake of a d
by wry_discontent 7y ago
I find that there's a huge amount of discussion that basically amounts to definitional disagreements. I'll cede definitions like "monopoly" for the sake of a discussion and continue to use them otherwise.
The trouble is those are uninteresting questions. "Is Amazon a monopoly?" immediately takes the more interesting discussion "what should we do about the size of Amazon" off the table and leaves us to bicker about what words mean. We likely won't reach an agreement about what officially constitutes a monopoly, but we can reason about what we should do in the future.
- zinclozenge 7y agoMost likely nothing will happen with respect to these large companies because generally speaking prosecution only happens when the company's status as a monopoly negatively affects the consumer (allegedly). The criteria is usually price of goods/services. It's possible this might include things like privacy violations or data mishandling in the future, but I doubt it. There's a DoJ memo, or something similar, that spurred this recent-ish change in policy but i can't seem to find it.