8 ms·

Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparat

Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. I mean seriously, Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them; that can only make things worse on the economics side. Why are we forgetting that? And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. And Amazon doesn't owe them the best possible service. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want!

bilbo0s 7y ago
>in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions This is the problem nowadays. We can't really trust anybody. The threats to our privacy and freedoms are coming from every quarter. And the worst part is, that some of the people and organizations telling us about the threats to our freedoms and privacy, are, in fact, likely the biggest threats to our freedoms and privacy.
- logicprog 7y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what you think the threats are, but it doesn't matter. This is a very correct sentiment! Well said.
adventured 7y ago
Large companies always use the government - when they can - to kneecap their competition. It's the very rare exception of a corporation that won't stoop to that level of behavior. There's practically an unlimited number of excuses a company can come up with to rationalize proceeding (with using the government as a leveling club). It's exactly what many of Microsoft's peers did in the 1990s. They waged a large, persistent campaign across years to convince the government to pursue and break up Microsoft. Larry Ellison went so far as to basically purchase trash from a cleaning company to get at info related to lobbyists supporting Microsoft's position.[1] Some of it was spot on, Microsoft was doing what they claimed; some of it was nothing more than ugly, base envy, jealousy, greed. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599 https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599
- logicprog 7y ago
  Exactly. I've always had an issue with the whole incident where everyone went after Microsoft.
leereeves 7y ago
> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? Perhaps people really feel that Amazon is an evil empire regardless of this competitor's actions.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I think the point is that the danger may be more with the competitor than with Amazon. Or even worse, they're all equally terrible. Which would mean that no matter what we do, we lose privacy and freedoms. The public is being manipulated into taking actions directly contradictory to its own good either way. One road to death and despair, the other to disease and destruction. You could say, "choose wisely", but it doesn't really look like it matters.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    I think we're still better off if we have multiple equally terrible competitors keeping each other in check than one dominant company unrestrained.
    - logicprog 7y ago
      Sure, but using the government to enforce the destruction of competitors and new entrants is the shortest way to that outcome. If Walmart wants to compete, that's great. If they want to destroy their competitors, that's... Less so.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      And at the same time, when you do that, you turn a 9mm round that's flying at you, into a shotgun blast. This whole thing requires more thoughtful consideration. You're talking about "better" off, but we are "best" off without any of the terrible competitors even having the ability to play the game. Instead of going the anti-trust route for instance, we may just want to make the entire practice of using private data for any commercial reason at all, expressly illegal. Collecting private data at all, should be expressly illegal without the consent of the individual in question. Like a HIPAA-GDPR combo move, except with prison time. Basically pursuing solutions like that, we should get serious with all these guys.
dzader 7y ago
> And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, Just like Windows was Microsoft's platform and anyone was free to install whatever browser they wanted... Use Netscape all you want!
gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
Personally that's why I tend to like the American anti-trust standard of consumer welfare, and it bothers me that politicians are trying to dislodge it. It really does bother me when the facets of the complaints against the giants boil down to basically, they're too good at that, or they can do things that others can't. At a blunt level, isn't that the point? Isn't it what we want? When we talk about services, not petroleum, I find it difficult to see nearly the deep damage that their market positions would cause in a different line of business.
- logicprog 7y ago
  Well said. Exactly!
- cat199 7y ago
  > they can do things that others can't. when they start to be so influential and market shaping that the 'things they can do that others cant' threatens to be 'sell products effectively enough to survive independently' or 'compete in this space at all, even with massive backing' then no, this is not what we want. granted, I don't think amazon is there yet, but they are certainly making impact.
devmunchies 7y ago
>Amazon is so superior to the competition I think too much efficiency in retail allows people to over-consume, and is a net negative for the environment and mental health... so i would support initiatives like this from a purely philosophical worldview. progress isn't always progress.
- logicprog 7y ago
  Sure except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view, and not something that is really viable to enforce for a government. It's also not really verifiable on enough cases to make a blanket ruling a good idea. By all means get the word out about overconsumption, but don't have the government force the people to act in their "higher self interest" by removing their ability to get access to efficient retail. I know a lot of people on HN love the idea that people are stupid and we need to regulate them to make them positively free, but that's not a great path to go down for a lot of reasons. On the environmental side, I think climate change is real, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone says it is, and I find it odd that the solution to every upcoming crisis is always more socialism, and then we get more socialism but it doesn't help and then the date of the crisis passes and we go on to a new one.
  - devmunchies 7y ago
    you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Its not just climate change i care about, it species extinction. I work remote on my own land in the mountains and definitely notice less birds singing. > except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise
    - logicprog 7y ago
      > you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Well that's basically just pastoral socialism, and very similar to what the left advocates anyway. I didn't actually know what you believed when I wrote that and tried not to assume, I was more processing my own experience with that. Furthermore my bigger point, using hysterics and fear tactics to push an agenda, still stands. > suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise Is that because of overconsumption though?
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. > Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them "Violence" is a word with a meaning, and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. Amazon isn't winning because they're superior to the competition. Lots of online sellers manage to not sell counterfeit goods, have better prices, and give more of the profit to the people actually producing products. Amazon is winning because of first-to-market advantages, pre-existing infrastructure, and monopolistic practices. > And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want! It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly.
- logicprog 7y ago
  > Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. I'm perfectly aware of that. The point is that everybody is echoing with the message, and not really worried about the delivery at all. Furthermore, if the delivery is suspect here I'm trying to suggest we should examine why we hate Amazon so much, and whether it's justified. > "Violence" is a word with a meaning, ... If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. I'm aware of that, thank you. If you have to resort to such sophistry maybe your point isn't correct! (Although I'm not actually saying that yet lol) > and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. Whenever you are trying to use the government to force people to do things, it's from a position of the threat of violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly. > It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly. I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.
Porthos9K 7y ago
Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not have inherent rights. They have powers defined by law[1]. Laws are enacted by governments instituted by the people (you and me) who are sovereign but delegate limited powers in order to live in a society. Jeff Bezos, as a human being, has intrinsic and inalienable human rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability to run his business under the aegis of a limited-liability corporation is not one of them. 1: A corporation's legally defined powers are generally described as "rights" because people tend to be sloppy in their use of language, do not appreciate correction, and often mistake precision for pedantry.
- Pyxl101 7y ago
  > Corporations do not have inherent rights. That's not exactly true. Corporations have many of the same rights. For example, in Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that: "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations (...) The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons'." (page 25 in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf ) If the First Amendment is the recognition of a right, then corporations have that right, just like natural persons. This concept in the US is called "corporate personhood" and it has long been recognized by courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_... > In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (...) Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Even if “corporate personhood” wasn’t a thing, any form of organization, incorporated or otherwise, like a church, would still have speech rights under the first amendment. “Corporate personhood” isn’t really a single concept under which contracts and land ownership and speech all work the same as if it were a person. It’s a bag of different concepts.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. The idea predates the astroturfing effort, which glommed on to it because the idea was popular, resilient, and convenient. The fact that it serves certain other companies’ interests to promote the idea doesn't invalidate it.
azdacha 7y ago
"superior" us what you call forced Prime subscription and tonight's server over-pricing ? Or is it when a company obviously in position or power is still asking for monetary help ? I'm not sure I agree with your définition of superior.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions This is the problem nowadays. We can't really trust anybody. The threats to our privacy and freedoms are coming from every quarter. And the worst part is, that some of the people and organizations telling us about the threats to our freedoms and privacy, are, in fact, likely the biggest threats to our freedoms and privacy.

logicprog 7y ago
I'm not exactly sure what you think the threats are, but it doesn't matter. This is a very correct sentiment! Well said.

adventured 7y ago

Large companies always use the government - when they can - to kneecap their competition. It's the very rare exception of a corporation that won't stoop to that level of behavior. There's practically an unlimited number of excuses a company can come up with to rationalize proceeding (with using the government as a leveling club). It's exactly what many of Microsoft's peers did in the 1990s. They waged a large, persistent campaign across years to convince the government to pursue and break up Microsoft. Larry Ellison went so far as to basically purchase trash from a cleaning company to get at info related to lobbyists supporting Microsoft's position.[1] Some of it was spot on, Microsoft was doing what they claimed; some of it was nothing more than ugly, base envy, jealousy, greed. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599 https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599

logicprog 7y ago
Exactly. I've always had an issue with the whole incident where everyone went after Microsoft.

leereeves 7y ago

> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? Perhaps people really feel that Amazon is an evil empire regardless of this competitor's actions.

bilbo0s 7y ago
I think the point is that the danger may be more with the competitor than with Amazon. Or even worse, they're all equally terrible. Which would mean that no matter what we do, we lose privacy and freedoms. The public is being manipulated into taking actions directly contradictory to its own good either way. One road to death and despair, the other to disease and destruction. You could say, "choose wisely", but it doesn't really look like it matters.
- leereeves 7y ago
  I think we're still better off if we have multiple equally terrible competitors keeping each other in check than one dominant company unrestrained.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    Sure, but using the government to enforce the destruction of competitors and new entrants is the shortest way to that outcome. If Walmart wants to compete, that's great. If they want to destroy their competitors, that's... Less so.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    And at the same time, when you do that, you turn a 9mm round that's flying at you, into a shotgun blast. This whole thing requires more thoughtful consideration. You're talking about "better" off, but we are "best" off without any of the terrible competitors even having the ability to play the game. Instead of going the anti-trust route for instance, we may just want to make the entire practice of using private data for any commercial reason at all, expressly illegal. Collecting private data at all, should be expressly illegal without the consent of the individual in question. Like a HIPAA-GDPR combo move, except with prison time. Basically pursuing solutions like that, we should get serious with all these guys.

dzader 7y ago

> And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, Just like Windows was Microsoft's platform and anyone was free to install whatever browser they wanted... Use Netscape all you want!

gimmeThaBeet 7y ago

Personally that's why I tend to like the American anti-trust standard of consumer welfare, and it bothers me that politicians are trying to dislodge it. It really does bother me when the facets of the complaints against the giants boil down to basically, they're too good at that, or they can do things that others can't. At a blunt level, isn't that the point? Isn't it what we want? When we talk about services, not petroleum, I find it difficult to see nearly the deep damage that their market positions would cause in a different line of business.

logicprog 7y ago
Well said. Exactly!
cat199 7y ago
> they can do things that others can't. when they start to be so influential and market shaping that the 'things they can do that others cant' threatens to be 'sell products effectively enough to survive independently' or 'compete in this space at all, even with massive backing' then no, this is not what we want. granted, I don't think amazon is there yet, but they are certainly making impact.

devmunchies 7y ago

>Amazon is so superior to the competition I think too much efficiency in retail allows people to over-consume, and is a net negative for the environment and mental health... so i would support initiatives like this from a purely philosophical worldview. progress isn't always progress.

logicprog 7y ago
Sure except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view, and not something that is really viable to enforce for a government. It's also not really verifiable on enough cases to make a blanket ruling a good idea. By all means get the word out about overconsumption, but don't have the government force the people to act in their "higher self interest" by removing their ability to get access to efficient retail. I know a lot of people on HN love the idea that people are stupid and we need to regulate them to make them positively free, but that's not a great path to go down for a lot of reasons. On the environmental side, I think climate change is real, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone says it is, and I find it odd that the solution to every upcoming crisis is always more socialism, and then we get more socialism but it doesn't help and then the date of the crisis passes and we go on to a new one.
- devmunchies 7y ago
  you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Its not just climate change i care about, it species extinction. I work remote on my own land in the mountains and definitely notice less birds singing. > except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise
  - logicprog 7y ago
    > you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.) Well that's basically just pastoral socialism, and very similar to what the left advocates anyway. I didn't actually know what you believed when I wrote that and tried not to assume, I was more processing my own experience with that. Furthermore my bigger point, using hysterics and fear tactics to push an agenda, still stands. > suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise Is that because of overconsumption though?

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. > Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them "Violence" is a word with a meaning, and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. Amazon isn't winning because they're superior to the competition. Lots of online sellers manage to not sell counterfeit goods, have better prices, and give more of the profit to the people actually producing products. Amazon is winning because of first-to-market advantages, pre-existing infrastructure, and monopolistic practices. > And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want! It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly.

logicprog 7y ago
> Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. I'm perfectly aware of that. The point is that everybody is echoing with the message, and not really worried about the delivery at all. Furthermore, if the delivery is suspect here I'm trying to suggest we should examine why we hate Amazon so much, and whether it's justified. > "Violence" is a word with a meaning, ... If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct. I'm aware of that, thank you. If you have to resort to such sophistry maybe your point isn't correct! (Although I'm not actually saying that yet lol) > and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. Whenever you are trying to use the government to force people to do things, it's from a position of the threat of violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly. > It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly. I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.

Porthos9K 7y ago

Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not have inherent rights. They have powers defined by law[1]. Laws are enacted by governments instituted by the people (you and me) who are sovereign but delegate limited powers in order to live in a society. Jeff Bezos, as a human being, has intrinsic and inalienable human rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability to run his business under the aegis of a limited-liability corporation is not one of them. 1: A corporation's legally defined powers are generally described as "rights" because people tend to be sloppy in their use of language, do not appreciate correction, and often mistake precision for pedantry.

Pyxl101 7y ago
> Corporations do not have inherent rights. That's not exactly true. Corporations have many of the same rights. For example, in Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that: "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations (...) The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons'." (page 25 in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf ) If the First Amendment is the recognition of a right, then corporations have that right, just like natural persons. This concept in the US is called "corporate personhood" and it has long been recognized by courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_... > In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (...) Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Even if “corporate personhood” wasn’t a thing, any form of organization, incorporated or otherwise, like a church, would still have speech rights under the first amendment. “Corporate personhood” isn’t really a single concept under which contracts and land ownership and speech all work the same as if it were a person. It’s a bag of different concepts.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me. The idea predates the astroturfing effort, which glommed on to it because the idea was popular, resilient, and convenient. The fact that it serves certain other companies’ interests to promote the idea doesn't invalidate it.

azdacha 7y ago

"superior" us what you call forced Prime subscription and tonight's server over-pricing ? Or is it when a company obviously in position or power is still asking for monetary help ? I'm not sure I agree with your définition of superior.