6 ms·

Because democratic societies generally dislike so much power concentrated in the hands of undemocratic institutions.

by pron 7y ago

dmix 7y ago
Anti-trust laws are there for economic reasons, ie, monopolies preventing competition leaving society worse-off as a whole than can be gained from efficiencies of a single organization. It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. A lot of companies dominate their markets but don't engage in overt anti-competitive behaviour. I don't think they've ever been enforced to serve some political end, like punishing companies for not serving some greater democratic purpose to appease the political parties.
- vkou 7y ago
  Yours is a very US-centric viewpoint. The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. The latter is, of course, always colored by politics. I will also note that the nature of the social network market, with its network effects, means that a large enough system with a closed API is, under those constraints, by definition anti-competitive - certainly to producers, and possibly to consumers.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    >The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. This statement is interesting, considering what it implies about the purpose of existence of producers for each respective side. With this stance, US is more like "producers exist to satisfy needs of customers", while EU is "producers exist just to compete with each other".
    - vkou 7y ago
      The EU, roughly, sees producers as a vehicle that exists to create jobs, and thus create prosperity for their employees. Once basic life needs are met, optimizing for customers tends to only good for someone who is living off their savings/welfare/etc. Optimizing for employees is good if you, like the majority of the people on Earth, have to work for a living, or are supported by someone who has to work for a living.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        Even in America, often producers wield more political power than consumers. Farm policies are often dictated by the interests of farmers more than the interests of people who eat food. Tariffs have traditionally been a mechanism to protect domestic producers at the expense of domestic consumers. Immigration provides economic benefits but some of these come at the expense of individual workers who face more competition. Even defense policy is affected: decisions are largely driven by the goal of creating or protecting jobs in particular states and districts rather than by the actual needs of the military. Everybody eats food, pays taxes, pays tariffs, and benefits from the protection of the military, but 300 million people who pay marginally fewer taxes and tariffs, eat marginally cheaper food, and enjoy the defense of a marginally more effective and efficient military are often "outvoted" by geographic concentrations of tens of thousands of people who have substantial vested interests. Given this inherent bias in democracy, I think it makes sense for policy to at least try to favor the consumer over the producer, just because producers do a good job taking care of themselves already.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  We've never had communications platforms so centralized, nor had comms companies with so much editorial control over peoples' exposure to information.
  - soperj 7y ago
    AT&T?
    - unethical_ban 7y ago
      >editorial control And as mentioned elsewhere, it was broken up, and then allowed to recongeal.
    - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
      Which was broken up in 1984 via antitrust regulation?
      - soperj 7y ago
        Responding to this specifically: >We've never had communications platforms so centralized
  - x220 7y ago
    The United States Postal Service? Although it's illegal for them to open mail without a specific warrant.
    - qubex 7y ago
      The USPS is my go-to example of why “Net Neutrality” is a requirement for communication.
      - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
        The USPS mail service is frankly bullshit. It exists to spam the hell out of you.
- zaphod4prez 7y ago
  Your last sentence does not seem right to me, and it also seems to be phrased in a disingenuous way. "punishing companies for not serving some greater democratic service" is a very weird way to describe a legitimate worry about consolidation of private power (which, by the way, has a very long history). Of course, healthy competition & pricing is a core issue here (duh). But power, in all its forms, is also a key issue. The founding fathers were very concerned about a corporation gaining too much power and interfering with democracy [1]. In addition, Facebook is constantly engaged in anti-competitive and unacceptable behavior, including buying multiple competitors (anti-competitive) and lying about its product (the recent inflated-ad-views scandal, which was literally a scam). The antitrust case against fb is complicated by the nature of the business, but there are plenty of very good reasons for the gov to investigate fb for antitrust violations [2]. Matt Stoller has done some good writing on monopoly, so has Binyamin Appelbaum. Both of them have books worth reading. [1]: In 1816, Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, said he hoped to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." (https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carella-Founding-fathers-worried-about-3628729.php https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carell...) [2]: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=bblj https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Hey, Thomas Jefferson also said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Like many of Jefferson's quotes, this one and yours are both out of context, with yours being in reference to a wealthy elite dodging taxes illegally. That context is a bit different than wanting the government breaking up a social media company because you disagree with it's methods of managing free speech.
    - pron 7y ago
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  > It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. That wasn't always true. The US was once fond of trust- busting.
Shivetya 7y ago
because politicians dislike it and scare their constituents and others into the same mode of thought. why can't we apply the same mindset to government because you have to be kidding yourself if you believe it is a democratic institution. Oh sure you may have the option to elect a few select people at different levels but the vast majority is not subject to your whims or even large groups of people. the reason is simple, in facebook's case and other companies which provide people a new way to assemble is that politicians do not control the message and that is intolerable to many of them. they pretty much had the news industry in their back pocket for generations but the internet blew that away when anyone could be the news. so don't subscribe to these fear tactics that big bad companies are taking our privacy and freedom, government is just jealous because it has all that and never had to share
- so_tobeclear 7y ago
  Nice try Facebook moderator
  - filoleg 7y ago
    Just because someone disagrees with you while bringing up a pretty compelling point, they are definitely a shill. Also, I believe your comment is in violation of the guidelines: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken." and "Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."[0] 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - so_tobeclear 7y ago
      For you then, I believe the above comment to be not only uncompelling but also disingenuous
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        I mean, I personally agree with said comment. Would love to hear your perspective beyond "this comment is wrong".

Because democratic societies generally dislike so much power concentrated in the hands of undemocratic institutions.

by pron 7y ago

Because democratic societies generally dislike so much power concentrated in the hands of undemocratic institutions.

dmix 7y ago

Anti-trust laws are there for economic reasons, ie, monopolies preventing competition leaving society worse-off as a whole than can be gained from efficiencies of a single organization. It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. A lot of companies dominate their markets but don't engage in overt anti-competitive behaviour. I don't think they've ever been enforced to serve some political end, like punishing companies for not serving some greater democratic purpose to appease the political parties.

vkou 7y ago
Yours is a very US-centric viewpoint. The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. The latter is, of course, always colored by politics. I will also note that the nature of the social network market, with its network effects, means that a large enough system with a closed API is, under those constraints, by definition anti-competitive - certainly to producers, and possibly to consumers.
- filoleg 7y ago
  >The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. This statement is interesting, considering what it implies about the purpose of existence of producers for each respective side. With this stance, US is more like "producers exist to satisfy needs of customers", while EU is "producers exist just to compete with each other".
  - vkou 7y ago
    The EU, roughly, sees producers as a vehicle that exists to create jobs, and thus create prosperity for their employees. Once basic life needs are met, optimizing for customers tends to only good for someone who is living off their savings/welfare/etc. Optimizing for employees is good if you, like the majority of the people on Earth, have to work for a living, or are supported by someone who has to work for a living.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      Even in America, often producers wield more political power than consumers. Farm policies are often dictated by the interests of farmers more than the interests of people who eat food. Tariffs have traditionally been a mechanism to protect domestic producers at the expense of domestic consumers. Immigration provides economic benefits but some of these come at the expense of individual workers who face more competition. Even defense policy is affected: decisions are largely driven by the goal of creating or protecting jobs in particular states and districts rather than by the actual needs of the military. Everybody eats food, pays taxes, pays tariffs, and benefits from the protection of the military, but 300 million people who pay marginally fewer taxes and tariffs, eat marginally cheaper food, and enjoy the defense of a marginally more effective and efficient military are often "outvoted" by geographic concentrations of tens of thousands of people who have substantial vested interests. Given this inherent bias in democracy, I think it makes sense for policy to at least try to favor the consumer over the producer, just because producers do a good job taking care of themselves already.
unethical_ban 7y ago
We've never had communications platforms so centralized, nor had comms companies with so much editorial control over peoples' exposure to information.
- soperj 7y ago
  AT&T?
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    >editorial control And as mentioned elsewhere, it was broken up, and then allowed to recongeal.
  - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
    Which was broken up in 1984 via antitrust regulation?
    - soperj 7y ago
      Responding to this specifically: >We've never had communications platforms so centralized
- x220 7y ago
  The United States Postal Service? Although it's illegal for them to open mail without a specific warrant.
  - qubex 7y ago
    The USPS is my go-to example of why “Net Neutrality” is a requirement for communication.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      The USPS mail service is frankly bullshit. It exists to spam the hell out of you.
zaphod4prez 7y ago
Your last sentence does not seem right to me, and it also seems to be phrased in a disingenuous way. "punishing companies for not serving some greater democratic service" is a very weird way to describe a legitimate worry about consolidation of private power (which, by the way, has a very long history). Of course, healthy competition & pricing is a core issue here (duh). But power, in all its forms, is also a key issue. The founding fathers were very concerned about a corporation gaining too much power and interfering with democracy [1]. In addition, Facebook is constantly engaged in anti-competitive and unacceptable behavior, including buying multiple competitors (anti-competitive) and lying about its product (the recent inflated-ad-views scandal, which was literally a scam). The antitrust case against fb is complicated by the nature of the business, but there are plenty of very good reasons for the gov to investigate fb for antitrust violations [2]. Matt Stoller has done some good writing on monopoly, so has Binyamin Appelbaum. Both of them have books worth reading. [1]: In 1816, Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, said he hoped to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." (https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carella-Founding-fathers-worried-about-3628729.php https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carell...) [2]: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=bblj https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 7y ago
  Hey, Thomas Jefferson also said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Like many of Jefferson's quotes, this one and yours are both out of context, with yours being in reference to a wealthy elite dodging taxes illegally. That context is a bit different than wanting the government breaking up a social media company because you disagree with it's methods of managing free speech.
  - pron 7y ago
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
> It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. That wasn't always true. The US was once fond of trust- busting.

Shivetya 7y ago

because politicians dislike it and scare their constituents and others into the same mode of thought. why can't we apply the same mindset to government because you have to be kidding yourself if you believe it is a democratic institution. Oh sure you may have the option to elect a few select people at different levels but the vast majority is not subject to your whims or even large groups of people. the reason is simple, in facebook's case and other companies which provide people a new way to assemble is that politicians do not control the message and that is intolerable to many of them. they pretty much had the news industry in their back pocket for generations but the internet blew that away when anyone could be the news. so don't subscribe to these fear tactics that big bad companies are taking our privacy and freedom, government is just jealous because it has all that and never had to share

so_tobeclear 7y ago
Nice try Facebook moderator
- filoleg 7y ago
  Just because someone disagrees with you while bringing up a pretty compelling point, they are definitely a shill. Also, I believe your comment is in violation of the guidelines: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken." and "Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."[0] 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - so_tobeclear 7y ago
    For you then, I believe the above comment to be not only uncompelling but also disingenuous
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      I mean, I personally agree with said comment. Would love to hear your perspective beyond "this comment is wrong".