5 ms·

In both of those cases, consumers were being overcharged for good and services in a variety of concrete economic ways. It's not analogous to the current situati

In both of those cases, consumers were being overcharged for good and services in a variety of concrete economic ways. It's not analogous to the current situation, I don't think. It's not like a broken up Google or Facebook would cease showing ads or show fewer ads. If anything, they'd show more, as we can see from all the random clickbait news sites that are more ad than material. It seems possible that a broken up version of these would be better for ad buyers, but (with my consumer hat on), I don't really care about ad buyers that much. It's hard to picture the broken up sites offering better services. It will be interesting to see! I'll be fascinated to see the degree to which congress is willing to take on these companies, and the degree to which their views on what should be done are congruent between the parties. I wonder the extent to which differing views on that subject could scuttle any legislation that would really address the concerns.

tacotacotaco 5y ago
> ... but (with my consumer hat on), I don't really care about ad buyers that much. Ad buyers are the consumers. You are the product.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  No, ad buyers are businesses. As much as business interests have been trying to redefine negative impact on consumers as including out-competing rival companies, that’s not what it means.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > No, ad buyers are businesses. As much as business interests have been trying to redefine negative impact on consumers as including out-competing rival companies, that’s not what it means. That's a bit of a non sequitur. Ad-buying businesses aren't, generally, rivals to the ad-selling platform. It isn't necessarily a bad model to treat them as consumers, or at least as proxies for actual consumers. The cost of monopoly rents being passed on to consumers isn't a particularly controversial proposition.
  - tacotacotaco 5y ago
    A rancher doesn't provide a pasture because the cattle are their customer.
socialist_coder 5y ago
> It's not like a broken up Google or Facebook would cease showing ads or show fewer ads. If there was a real competitor to Google, I would imagine they would try showing less ads. If there was a real competitor to Facebook, who knows what changes they would make to the newsfeed. I would hope we could get some competitors that make things better for the end user, worse for the ad buyer, but can still be profitable.

tacotacotaco 5y ago

> ... but (with my consumer hat on), I don't really care about ad buyers that much. Ad buyers are the consumers. You are the product.

dodobirdlord 5y ago
No, ad buyers are businesses. As much as business interests have been trying to redefine negative impact on consumers as including out-competing rival companies, that’s not what it means.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > No, ad buyers are businesses. As much as business interests have been trying to redefine negative impact on consumers as including out-competing rival companies, that’s not what it means. That's a bit of a non sequitur. Ad-buying businesses aren't, generally, rivals to the ad-selling platform. It isn't necessarily a bad model to treat them as consumers, or at least as proxies for actual consumers. The cost of monopoly rents being passed on to consumers isn't a particularly controversial proposition.
- tacotacotaco 5y ago
  A rancher doesn't provide a pasture because the cattle are their customer.

socialist_coder 5y ago

> It's not like a broken up Google or Facebook would cease showing ads or show fewer ads. If there was a real competitor to Google, I would imagine they would try showing less ads. If there was a real competitor to Facebook, who knows what changes they would make to the newsfeed. I would hope we could get some competitors that make things better for the end user, worse for the ad buyer, but can still be profitable.