3 ms·

None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies. And this sort of 'collusion' isn't illegal - the illegal collusion is a c

None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies. And this sort of 'collusion' isn't illegal - the illegal collusion is a completely different thing. Actually there isn't even any collusion of either kind to begin with.

dragonwriter 6y ago
Were there actually a joint agreement not to compete for particular customers, there would be a case that it was a combination in restraint of trade.
- mech422 6y ago
  Twitter doesn't do hosting, so it wouldn't 'compete' with AWS for customers? and AWS isn't a social media site?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Twitter doesn’t do hosting, so it wouldn’t ‘compete’ with AWS for customers? Sure, the place were an agreement of restraint of trade would be more simply possible would be something like Twitter/FB. Though if you had a Twitter/FB pact and AWS was brought in and agreed to kick off Twitter/FB competitors that didn’t voluntarily join the Twitter/FB pact, AWS could be part of the scheme… And a Twitter/AWS agreement alone along the same lines could be problematic, if Twitter alone had market power.
    - mech422 6y ago
      Except the lawsuit mentions AWS and twitter...not FB? I mean sure, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios but the probably have zero relevance to the case ?
Helloworldboy 6y ago
How can you possibly argue that google and apple don’t monopolize app distribution on their respective platforms? Are you disingenuous enough to suggest that the entirety of parler’s userbase should be jailbreaking their iPhones and sideloading .apks?
Miner49er 6y ago
> None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies Then why is Amazon facing action or under investigation for antitrust from Congress, the European Union, the DOJ and 3 states?

3 ms·

None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies. And this sort of 'collusion' isn't illegal - the illegal collusion is a c

by the_pwner224 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago
Were there actually a joint agreement not to compete for particular customers, there would be a case that it was a combination in restraint of trade.
- mech422 6y ago
  Twitter doesn't do hosting, so it wouldn't 'compete' with AWS for customers? and AWS isn't a social media site?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Twitter doesn’t do hosting, so it wouldn’t ‘compete’ with AWS for customers? Sure, the place were an agreement of restraint of trade would be more simply possible would be something like Twitter/FB. Though if you had a Twitter/FB pact and AWS was brought in and agreed to kick off Twitter/FB competitors that didn’t voluntarily join the Twitter/FB pact, AWS could be part of the scheme… And a Twitter/AWS agreement alone along the same lines could be problematic, if Twitter alone had market power.
    - mech422 6y ago
      Except the lawsuit mentions AWS and twitter...not FB? I mean sure, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios but the probably have zero relevance to the case ?
Helloworldboy 6y ago
How can you possibly argue that google and apple don’t monopolize app distribution on their respective platforms? Are you disingenuous enough to suggest that the entirety of parler’s userbase should be jailbreaking their iPhones and sideloading .apks?
Miner49er 6y ago
> None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies Then why is Amazon facing action or under investigation for antitrust from Congress, the European Union, the DOJ and 3 states?