5 ms·

I believe the article is referring to this poll[0]. The poll contains several questions concerning "internet giants." For example, "Do you think that today's i

by rbrott 6y ago

I believe the article is referring to this poll[0]. The poll contains several questions concerning "internet giants." For example, "Do you think that today's internet giants should be subject to federal anti-trust review given that they offer largely free services?" Yes 68%, No 32% [0]: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HHP_July2019_Topline_RegisteredVoters-1.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HHP...

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
> "internet giants" > given that they offer largely free services Why don't we just hold a gun to peoples' heads while we poll people and tell them they're evil for voting "No"? Is this what passes as best practice in the world of opinion polling?
- danaris 6y ago
  I'm not sure how you get from your quotes to your own post. My reading of it was, "Due to the fact that their offerings to the public are free, antitrust law, whose jurisprudence has for decades held that consumer prices are the sole useful measure of whether a company is anticompetitive, has largely ignored internet giants. Do you think that this should change, ensuring that they receive the same level of antitrust scrutiny as companies that drive out their competitors and then jack up prices?" Now, I don't know if that's what everyone taking the poll would have gotten out of the given wording, but when I see the mention of "free services" in the context of internet giants and antitrust law, that's where my mind goes. It's...not at all an obvious "yes" (unless, like me, you're extremely far left of the average American), so I'm not sure where you're getting a "gun to the head" feel.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    You're really not sure? I would not trust any poll that thinks the use of the term "internet giants" is going to yield results without biases imposed by the poll itself. Just about nobody polled on this question is going to know what qualifies a company to be gone after for anti-trust violations. They have never read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Then the question tacks onto the end, "given that they offer largely free services." This is supposed to do what, exactly? Inform people that offering "largely free services" is a violation of the anti-trust act? This kind of deceptive wording is clearly endeavoring to mislead people. There does not appear to have been any effort at constructing an accurate picture here, and let's be honest as to why. In all likelihood, this poll was designed to construct and reinforce a specific narrative, not to report on public opinion.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Do you think that today's internet giants should be subject to federal anti-trust review But now you're asking something completely different, because "antitrust review" is done by the DoJ under existing law whereas Congress would be creating new restrictions that aren't already on the books ("increased regulation"). On top of that, the question is worded as if you're asking whether they should be investigated rather than penalized, which is also a different question -- basically asking if the government should enforce existing law rather than ignore it.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Do you genuinely think the average survey-answerer is well-acquainted with such legal specifics?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    That antitrust falls under the DoJ in particular? Probably not. That enforcement falls under the executive and making new laws falls under the legislature, as taught in every introductory high school civics class? Sure.
root_axis 6y ago
Ok, but that's not at all the same as > ask directly about breaking up or regulating Big Tech, which is very popular. If this is what they were referring to then it seems intentionally misleading in the context of criticizing the outcome of poll results based on the details of the question's construction.

by rbrott 6y ago

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago

> "internet giants" > given that they offer largely free services Why don't we just hold a gun to peoples' heads while we poll people and tell them they're evil for voting "No"? Is this what passes as best practice in the world of opinion polling?

danaris 6y ago
I'm not sure how you get from your quotes to your own post. My reading of it was, "Due to the fact that their offerings to the public are free, antitrust law, whose jurisprudence has for decades held that consumer prices are the sole useful measure of whether a company is anticompetitive, has largely ignored internet giants. Do you think that this should change, ensuring that they receive the same level of antitrust scrutiny as companies that drive out their competitors and then jack up prices?" Now, I don't know if that's what everyone taking the poll would have gotten out of the given wording, but when I see the mention of "free services" in the context of internet giants and antitrust law, that's where my mind goes. It's...not at all an obvious "yes" (unless, like me, you're extremely far left of the average American), so I'm not sure where you're getting a "gun to the head" feel.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  You're really not sure? I would not trust any poll that thinks the use of the term "internet giants" is going to yield results without biases imposed by the poll itself. Just about nobody polled on this question is going to know what qualifies a company to be gone after for anti-trust violations. They have never read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Then the question tacks onto the end, "given that they offer largely free services." This is supposed to do what, exactly? Inform people that offering "largely free services" is a violation of the anti-trust act? This kind of deceptive wording is clearly endeavoring to mislead people. There does not appear to have been any effort at constructing an accurate picture here, and let's be honest as to why. In all likelihood, this poll was designed to construct and reinforce a specific narrative, not to report on public opinion.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Do you think that today's internet giants should be subject to federal anti-trust review But now you're asking something completely different, because "antitrust review" is done by the DoJ under existing law whereas Congress would be creating new restrictions that aren't already on the books ("increased regulation"). On top of that, the question is worded as if you're asking whether they should be investigated rather than penalized, which is also a different question -- basically asking if the government should enforce existing law rather than ignore it.

Apocryphon 6y ago
Do you genuinely think the average survey-answerer is well-acquainted with such legal specifics?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  That antitrust falls under the DoJ in particular? Probably not. That enforcement falls under the executive and making new laws falls under the legislature, as taught in every introductory high school civics class? Sure.

root_axis 6y ago

Ok, but that's not at all the same as > ask directly about breaking up or regulating Big Tech, which is very popular. If this is what they were referring to then it seems intentionally misleading in the context of criticizing the outcome of poll results based on the details of the question's construction.