7 ms·
Words get abused a lot, and for some of them, they do not have a clear-cut, universally agreed upon meaning. "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate i
by doukdouk 6y ago
Words get abused a lot, and for some of them, they do not have a clear-cut, universally agreed upon meaning. "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate include: freedom, democracy, justice).
When random person X complains about, say, Google having a monopoly, there are two possibilities:
- Person X means something along "Google has a dominant market position and abuses its power", slightly abusing the meaning of "monopoly".
- Person X means Google is literally a monopoly, that it is not possible to get online ads otherwise and does not know that firms such as Facebook exist.
Somehow a lot of people choose to believe interpretation #2 is true, and spend a lot of time debating whether this or that company is a "monopoly" as if it is somehow more important than the substantive issues.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoMeaning isn't dictated by a language academy and may change over time. Debating about the precise differences between monopoly and monopsony serves more to distract from the core issue: abuse of their market position. If the allegations are true then I can't see a solution that does not involve breaking Google up. The incentives to cheat are likely just undeniable over a time scale of years.
- dustingetz 6y agoDuopoly?
- doukdouk 6y agoAgain, mindless arguing what exact word fit or does not fit the situation detracts from the real issues.
- Spivak 6y agoIf the only thing the word "monopoly" does is spark a discussion about the word then why use it? Why is it so important that Google be a monopoly for their behavior to be bad? Do we really have no other words to describe business practices that we don't like?
- doukdouk 6y agoBecause it is generally accepted that monopolies are bad and that not-monopolies are ok. It is much easier to sell the simple idea that "X is a monopoly, so split X", than to make a long case that "X does Y and Z which meet ABC definition of unfair use of market position, bla bla bla, so split X". Conversely, for a company in the wrong, it is easier to say "Of course monopolies are bad, but we are not a monopoly!".
- stale2002 6y ago> or we really have no other words There are other words, but it is a bit of a mouthful. Because of these exact issues, the way that I describe the situation is usually as follows "Company X has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions". I have yet to have someone object to that definition.
- xibalba 6y agoYou may be over-indexing on a prescriptive lexicon: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoI think the argument that Facebook and Google compete in the ad space is tenuous at best. Just ask a digital marketer: almost all of them consider FB and Google to have separate purposes and markets. So fine, Google doesn't have a monopoly on online ads, but they do have a monopoly on search ads.
- speeder 6y agoI am the CMO for a company. Google is the ONLY ad provider that give results, all others don't even get any clicks. How that is not a monopoly on the classic definition? Every time Google has a bug and screw with my ads, the revenue of the company I work for tanks hard, and I am yet to find any solution for it.
- giancarlostoro 6y agoYou may want to contact the antitrust regulators, testimonies such as your are highly relevant to this case.
- emteycz 6y agothey are also untrue in general. in some markets social networking ads work, in some search ads work, that's to be expected - you don't expect eg. ad placements by the train company to be always effective regardless of what you're selling.
- donor20 6y agoI'd love to see the specifics of these players. Facebook targeting is actually more effective in many cases then google (I don't even use facebook personally or have the app myself). A lot of the claims by folks fall apart when you look deeper (ie, scam review sites complaining about google rankings etc). The CUSTOMER should benefit - I don't give a crap if some scammers get ranked down.
- ardy42 6y ago> Somehow a lot of people choose to believe interpretation #2 is true, and spend a lot of time debating whether this or that company is a "monopoly" as if it is somehow more important than the substantive issues Not to accuse anyone here of this, but intentionally doing what you describe is an disingenuous but effective way of shaping the conversation to discourage scrutiny of more general kinds of anti-competitive behavior. I'm sure it's part of any monopolist's PR strategy (or large business engaged in anti-competitive behavior, to be more precise).
- animationwill 6y agoAre you saying OP is a Google PR insider accusing Google of abusing market privilege while ensuring the perfect definition of “monopoly“ isn’t marred by inaccuracy?
- brendoelfrendo 6y agoNo, I'm pretty sure they're saying that debating the semantics of an argument rather than the merit of the argument is a tactic often used by bad-faith actors who seek to reshape a conversation to their advantage by discouraging deeper scrutiny of their position past "yeah, well, they keep using that word and I don't think they know what it means."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tel 6y agoMonopolies are a well-defined theoretical concept, but in practice it's about market power. When one entity has overwhelming market power it's afforded with options that harm consumer welfare. Anti-trust isn't about defeating theoretical monopolies. It's about protecting consumers, new businesses, the market from abuses through overwhelming market power. So your first possibility seems right on the money and appropriate.
- Klinky 6y agoPeople need to use the words antitrust or anticompetitive more often, just because you could claim there are competitors, doesn't mean the market is fair to competition or consumers.
- tynpeddler 6y agoIf someone wants to make a charge against Google, then by all means do it. But the people making the charge have a responsibility to communicate their position clearly. Complaining that the the wider population is not following along with an intentional abuse of language sounds like a bad faith argument, especially when we're talking about a well established term like "monopoly".
- theptip 6y agoThe problem with this analysis is that “monopoly” is only one part of antitrust law, and there are plenty of other abuses of dominant market positions that don’t require a monopoly to be present. Furthermore, in the legal context the meaning is more clear-cut than you make out, though there is significant room for debate. I would not put it anywhere near “freedom” in terms of loose definitions. There are rigorous tests for determining whether a company should be deemed to be a monopoly within a specific market (which requires both a method for defining the boundary of a market, and what “dominant” means.) This is also different by country, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_189... Vs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_l... I think your general point is to stop focusing on monopoly and get more familiar with all of the different antitrust provisions, to which I would wholeheartedly agree.
- doukdouk 6y agoIf your point is that "monopoly" has a different meaning in a colloquial/political context and in a legal context, that it relies on non-obvious definitions of what the relevant market, what dominant is, and that it varies by country, I do not think it strongly supports the assertion that it does not have a loose definition.
- theptip 6y agoI was mainly arguing against > "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate include: freedom, democracy, justice). -- there is a much more rigorous definition of Monopoly than the other ones you listed. You're claiming that it is some undefined concept that varies from person to person, but I think that's only true in the sense that "encryption" or "space-time" has a loose definition; most lay people don't understand technical jargon, and often misuse the jargon when they think they know what they are talking about. But that doesn't mean there _isn't_ a well-defined meaning that is agreed upon by the specialists that actually work in the domain in question. The other words you listed do not have clear-cut legal definitions in the same way; they are not technical jargon defining criteria for enforceable regulations with tests and case-law backing them up.
- jellicle 6y agoTo be clear if anyone has any doubt, antitrust law talks about firms having "market power". That's all that is required; the ability to move the market in bad ways. A monopoly (strict definition) is not in any way required to violate antitrust law. You could violate antitrust law with a 5% market share. People wanting to nitpick about the word monopoly should be educated (first offense) or mocked and shunned (repeat intentional offenders). Google has a 73% share of online advertising, according to a random study from 2019.
- temp667 6y agoPeople who abuse the word monopoly should be educated (first offence) and mocked or shunned (repeat intentional offenders). It's almost impossible to have rational discourse these days because accurately describing things is no longer required (and if you care to try you are "mocked and shunned") so everyone is arguing without a common set of understandings or facts or even language that is consistent. Kind of pathetic. Your water company may be a monopoly. You may have no choice but to use it (in cities you cannot even drill your own well or in some cases are banned from collecting rainwater). That is a monopoly. As someone who grew up using a well, this is a clear difference and impact.
- heavyset_go 6y agoFrom the government itself[1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- nodamage 6y agoI've seen this quoted a lot lately but saying that a literal monopoly (as in, a single company with 100% market share) is not required doesn't really say much about what is required, which depends on the specific violation being alleged. Some violations (price fixing, bid rigging) are considered so egregious that they are illegal regardless of market share. Other violations (tying) require some degree of market power. Violations related to monopolization or attempted monopolization do require monopoly power (or the dangerous probability of obtaining it it).