6 ms·

How is this a show of monopolistic force? Its like a a half dozen interdependently owned companies each choosing on their own to not associate with Parler. If

How is this a show of monopolistic force? Its like a a half dozen interdependently owned companies each choosing on their own to not associate with Parler. If you piss off everyone at the same time and everyone decides to not do business with you, thats not a monopoly issue.

ipsum2 6y ago
This article makes me sad, because I used to support Greenwald. It's surprising he doesn't know the definition of monopoly (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter do not compose a monopoly).
- kats 6y ago
  In the US there are two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share. And large companies like Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Amazon (Fire OS), and Samsung (Tizen) haven't been able to grow their market share, so the barrier to entry seems pretty high.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    even if that's true (it is and it isn't, but the pedantry isn't important), what you're saying is effectively is that a duopoly over mobile devices is the same as a monopoly over the internet. that's patently untrue. it's untrue in the simplistic sense that you can access the internet with non-mobile technology, and its even untrue in the slightly less simplistic sense that an organization can provides its online presence as a website (gasp!) so as to avoid the need to have an app available on corporately-controlled stores.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Udik 6y ago
    > two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share Not to mention the fact that if you're kicked out of only one of the two you're basically finished if you live on network effect. If Google decided to kick Whatsapp out of the Android store, even those who have iPhones would have no reason to use it any more.
- rodgerd 6y ago
  I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The fact his work has such an uncritical following on HN doesn't say much could about HN's pretensions to offer high quality discussion.
  - iaw 6y ago
    It may have to do with Greenwald's staunch defense of Julian Assange and the HN community having vocal support for him.
    - MrMan 6y ago
      I used to just be creeped out by the greed on HN but now I feel like it is a sinister place
      - rodgerd 6y ago
        The fact that there's relentless pro-parler, pro-insurrectionist takes hitting the front page, but Amazon's detailed rebuttal to Parler's legal claims or technically quite interesting citizen investiations of the attack on the US Capitol tells you a lot about HN's worldview.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - krspykrm 6y ago
    > I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.
    - ihumanable 6y ago
      While this differs in form, it doesn't seem to differ in substance. "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection. 13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.
curiousllama 6y ago
Cartel may be a better term, but the argument holds. The point is they collectively wield undue market power and function as a de facto collective in the use of that power.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  According to the CEO of Parler, their bank and payment provider, law firm, and mail and texting providers all cancelled as well. What are you supposed to do then? Store cash in boxes? Receive cash through mail? Parker was destroyed when their business partners exercised freedom of association and cancelled on them.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Bitcoin
  - JarlUlvi 6y ago
    if a cartel of companies having intertwined business interests collaborates to destroy an uprising competitor that is inherently monopolistic behavior
xiphias2 6y ago
Mark Zuckerberg was asked whether the companies are synchronizing who they are banning with a special platform that was created for it, and Mark didn’t answer. Everybody can see that in the last few years banning got centralized, there’s no real competition between the big companies anymore on free speech. Like others have written it, it’s a cartel at this poimt.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Did Mark Zuckerberg coordinate with Parler’s lawyers, payment provider, and bank? They all dropped Parler as a customer.
  - jquery 6y ago
    None of those would immediately take Parler offline. Parler quickly found new lawyers, obviously, as they were able to release a very well-written complaint yesterday that described how AWS broke the law in several different ways when it gave Parler the death penalty at the height of its popularity.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  Absence of evidence isn't evidence though. It could be that the CEO was also trained not to respond to questions that could be twisted around in an anti-trust allegation.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    It was evidence from a Facebook whistle-blower with concrete pictures and concrete name of the project, not some random questions. Of course the CEO's answer was all non-answers. Nobody was surprised of that. Then Mark was asked personal questions and he was shocked...the same questions that he knows about everybody in the world.
- brown9-2 6y ago
  Where was he asked this, what was the venue?

ipsum2 6y ago

This article makes me sad, because I used to support Greenwald. It's surprising he doesn't know the definition of monopoly (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter do not compose a monopoly).

kats 6y ago
In the US there are two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share. And large companies like Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Amazon (Fire OS), and Samsung (Tizen) haven't been able to grow their market share, so the barrier to entry seems pretty high.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  even if that's true (it is and it isn't, but the pedantry isn't important), what you're saying is effectively is that a duopoly over mobile devices is the same as a monopoly over the internet. that's patently untrue. it's untrue in the simplistic sense that you can access the internet with non-mobile technology, and its even untrue in the slightly less simplistic sense that an organization can provides its online presence as a website (gasp!) so as to avoid the need to have an app available on corporately-controlled stores.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Udik 6y ago
  > two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share Not to mention the fact that if you're kicked out of only one of the two you're basically finished if you live on network effect. If Google decided to kick Whatsapp out of the Android store, even those who have iPhones would have no reason to use it any more.
rodgerd 6y ago
I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The fact his work has such an uncritical following on HN doesn't say much could about HN's pretensions to offer high quality discussion.
- iaw 6y ago
  It may have to do with Greenwald's staunch defense of Julian Assange and the HN community having vocal support for him.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    I used to just be creeped out by the greed on HN but now I feel like it is a sinister place
    - rodgerd 6y ago
      The fact that there's relentless pro-parler, pro-insurrectionist takes hitting the front page, but Amazon's detailed rebuttal to Parler's legal claims or technically quite interesting citizen investiations of the attack on the US Capitol tells you a lot about HN's worldview.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- krspykrm 6y ago
  > I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.
  - ihumanable 6y ago
    While this differs in form, it doesn't seem to differ in substance. "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection. 13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.

curiousllama 6y ago

Cartel may be a better term, but the argument holds. The point is they collectively wield undue market power and function as a de facto collective in the use of that power.

threatofrain 6y ago
According to the CEO of Parler, their bank and payment provider, law firm, and mail and texting providers all cancelled as well. What are you supposed to do then? Store cash in boxes? Receive cash through mail? Parker was destroyed when their business partners exercised freedom of association and cancelled on them.
- zepto 6y ago
  Bitcoin
- JarlUlvi 6y ago
  if a cartel of companies having intertwined business interests collaborates to destroy an uprising competitor that is inherently monopolistic behavior

xiphias2 6y ago

Mark Zuckerberg was asked whether the companies are synchronizing who they are banning with a special platform that was created for it, and Mark didn’t answer. Everybody can see that in the last few years banning got centralized, there’s no real competition between the big companies anymore on free speech. Like others have written it, it’s a cartel at this poimt.

quickthrowman 6y ago
Did Mark Zuckerberg coordinate with Parler’s lawyers, payment provider, and bank? They all dropped Parler as a customer.
- jquery 6y ago
  None of those would immediately take Parler offline. Parler quickly found new lawyers, obviously, as they were able to release a very well-written complaint yesterday that described how AWS broke the law in several different ways when it gave Parler the death penalty at the height of its popularity.
three_seagrass 6y ago
Absence of evidence isn't evidence though. It could be that the CEO was also trained not to respond to questions that could be twisted around in an anti-trust allegation.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It was evidence from a Facebook whistle-blower with concrete pictures and concrete name of the project, not some random questions. Of course the CEO's answer was all non-answers. Nobody was surprised of that. Then Mark was asked personal questions and he was shocked...the same questions that he knows about everybody in the world.
brown9-2 6y ago
Where was he asked this, what was the venue?