4 ms·

Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still enf

Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still enforced.

SahAssar 5y ago
Anti-trust is meant to protect competition against monopolies, not everything against anything evil. At least that's how I've understood it. It'd be hard to argue that Kape is even close to becoming a monopoly.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Right. There are dozens of different VPN providers and switching costs are pretty low.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  AIUI antitrust also covers cartels, e.g. this one from the early 20th century controlling lightbulbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
  - SahAssar 5y ago
    Isn't a cartel a type of threat to competition via monopoly? The wikipedia first-line definition of a cartel is "A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market". The monopoly in that case is by the group.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      It seems like a cartel can form without having a collective monopoly. It's the collusion that's problematic, not the combined percentage.
      - roywiggins 5y ago
        There's no Kape cartel if they just own lots of brands, Kape can't collude with itself...
tablespoon 5y ago
> Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still enforced. Even without anti-trust, it should be illegal to own or buy a "review site" for something you sell. That kind of thing is very counter to consumer interests and a blatant conflict of interest.
- ortusdux 5y ago
  I frequently encounter 1-off review sites that are owned by the #1 product on the list. Many are transparent about it, and some even do a good job listing their competitors and describing them in a fair light. I think they are mostly a response to Google's algorithms prioritizing reciently published blog style top-10 lists. Here is the first result when I google "best free youtube downloader" https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downloader.html https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downlo...
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership? Even if they do, they can probably satisfy the requirement with disclosure where no one would actually notice it. The only kind of disclosure I'd be happy with is if at the top of the page and next to any self-endorsement they would have to show a garish warning banner with a legally mandated design that called out their conflict of interest in blunt terms. It would be easier and better to just ban the practice.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. For example news papers are often the only good source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often owned by the same parent company. In the Kape case I think it is clearly dishonest, and the same can be said for the online order mattress space among others. Most online direct to consumer spaces (for example gaming and anti-virus) probably has some actor that is dishonestly setting up or buying review sites. But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense draw the line.
killingtime74 5y ago
I studied competition law and I think the regulators would probably struggle to even understand what a VPN is
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  They don't even have to though. All they have to know is that it's a market.
  - killingtime74 5y ago
    They won’t look to investigate if they don’t even understand the product
dehrmann 5y ago
I suppose, but they have better things to do with their time than prevent consolidation in the snake oil market.

Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still enforced.

SahAssar 5y ago

Anti-trust is meant to protect competition against monopolies, not everything against anything evil. At least that's how I've understood it. It'd be hard to argue that Kape is even close to becoming a monopoly.

missedthecue 5y ago
Right. There are dozens of different VPN providers and switching costs are pretty low.
nitrogen 5y ago
AIUI antitrust also covers cartels, e.g. this one from the early 20th century controlling lightbulbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
- SahAssar 5y ago
  Isn't a cartel a type of threat to competition via monopoly? The wikipedia first-line definition of a cartel is "A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market". The monopoly in that case is by the group.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    It seems like a cartel can form without having a collective monopoly. It's the collusion that's problematic, not the combined percentage.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      There's no Kape cartel if they just own lots of brands, Kape can't collude with itself...

tablespoon 5y ago

> Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still enforced. Even without anti-trust, it should be illegal to own or buy a "review site" for something you sell. That kind of thing is very counter to consumer interests and a blatant conflict of interest.

ortusdux 5y ago
I frequently encounter 1-off review sites that are owned by the #1 product on the list. Many are transparent about it, and some even do a good job listing their competitors and describing them in a fair light. I think they are mostly a response to Google's algorithms prioritizing reciently published blog style top-10 lists. Here is the first result when I google "best free youtube downloader" https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downloader.html https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downlo...
xboxnolifes 5y ago
I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership? Even if they do, they can probably satisfy the requirement with disclosure where no one would actually notice it. The only kind of disclosure I'd be happy with is if at the top of the page and next to any self-endorsement they would have to show a garish warning banner with a legally mandated design that called out their conflict of interest in blunt terms. It would be easier and better to just ban the practice.
SahAssar 5y ago
That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. For example news papers are often the only good source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often owned by the same parent company. In the Kape case I think it is clearly dishonest, and the same can be said for the online order mattress space among others. Most online direct to consumer spaces (for example gaming and anti-virus) probably has some actor that is dishonestly setting up or buying review sites. But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense draw the line.

killingtime74 5y ago

I studied competition law and I think the regulators would probably struggle to even understand what a VPN is

GekkePrutser 5y ago
They don't even have to though. All they have to know is that it's a market.
- killingtime74 5y ago
  They won’t look to investigate if they don’t even understand the product

dehrmann 5y ago

I suppose, but they have better things to do with their time than prevent consolidation in the snake oil market.