6 ms·

Isn't the term just "too powerful"? It seems to me that the reason we don't have laws against companies being too powerful is that most people don't think it's

Isn't the term just "too powerful"? It seems to me that the reason we don't have laws against companies being too powerful is that most people don't think it's a big deal for companies to be too powerful, as long as they're not monopolies.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
If people thought an entity was “too powerful”, then they would want a law against the entity, otherwise the word “too” does not mean anything. The reason there is no law against being “too powerful” is because it is a nebulous description that is not enforceable in a fair manner.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I kinda fundamentally reject the premise here. When I say that a sandwich is "too expensive", I don't mean that there ought to be a law against selling sandwiches for that price.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The context is dealing with the problem of the existence of a too powerful company. Dealing with a too expensive sandwich requires no laws.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      If refusing to work with a company is impossible, it's a monopoly, right? Otherwise, you are free to respond to the too-powerful company the same way you respond to the too-expensive sandwich. If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has. Illegalizing shadow profiles of non-users would be a good step forward, illegalizing them only for FB-sized companies would be less good. If a handful of companies are operating as a monopoly, that's already well-defined as an oligopoly. I think the only other situation where a company can be too powerful is if they get too much power over the regulators. I expect it's rare to get there without becoming a monopoly or oligopoly, but it's probably not impossible.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        >If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has. I agree, hence my explanation of why there are no laws against "too powerful" companies. It is not an actionable condition.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Antitrust law is law against being too powerful.
- bumby 5y ago
  This isn't a new problem though. Anti-trust laws have been enforced previously without a strict definition. "Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred"[1] [1]Section of Antitrust Law, Am. Bar Ass'n, Market Power Handbook 1920 (2005).
Nasrudith 5y ago
Well yes but that term is too honest for its own good as a matter of opinion. "Too powerful" is an absolutely arbitrary standard with no desire for internal consistency. Which is exactly the opposite of what you want in laws.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I agree with what you're saying, but that's exactly the problem. I don't think the author of the source article has a clear, internally consistent standard, and I don't think any consistent standard exists that would tell you Google and Facebook need to be broken up but CVS and Costco don't.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

If people thought an entity was “too powerful”, then they would want a law against the entity, otherwise the word “too” does not mean anything. The reason there is no law against being “too powerful” is because it is a nebulous description that is not enforceable in a fair manner.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I kinda fundamentally reject the premise here. When I say that a sandwich is "too expensive", I don't mean that there ought to be a law against selling sandwiches for that price.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The context is dealing with the problem of the existence of a too powerful company. Dealing with a too expensive sandwich requires no laws.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    If refusing to work with a company is impossible, it's a monopoly, right? Otherwise, you are free to respond to the too-powerful company the same way you respond to the too-expensive sandwich. If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has. Illegalizing shadow profiles of non-users would be a good step forward, illegalizing them only for FB-sized companies would be less good. If a handful of companies are operating as a monopoly, that's already well-defined as an oligopoly. I think the only other situation where a company can be too powerful is if they get too much power over the regulators. I expect it's rare to get there without becoming a monopoly or oligopoly, but it's probably not impossible.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      >If a company is using its power to do something harmful, write laws against the harmful thing, irrespective of how much power the company has. I agree, hence my explanation of why there are no laws against "too powerful" companies. It is not an actionable condition.
alisonkisk 5y ago
Antitrust law is law against being too powerful.
bumby 5y ago
This isn't a new problem though. Anti-trust laws have been enforced previously without a strict definition. "Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred"[1] [1]Section of Antitrust Law, Am. Bar Ass'n, Market Power Handbook 1920 (2005).

Nasrudith 5y ago

Well yes but that term is too honest for its own good as a matter of opinion. "Too powerful" is an absolutely arbitrary standard with no desire for internal consistency. Which is exactly the opposite of what you want in laws.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I agree with what you're saying, but that's exactly the problem. I don't think the author of the source article has a clear, internally consistent standard, and I don't think any consistent standard exists that would tell you Google and Facebook need to be broken up but CVS and Costco don't.