6 ms·

I find it sad that all this is coming from state AGs and not from the DOJ and FTC. It just shows how corrupt our federal institutions are due to regulatory capt

by Jerry2 5y ago

I find it sad that all this is coming from state AGs and not from the DOJ and FTC. It just shows how corrupt our federal institutions are due to regulatory capture [1]. I still remember how Google escaped antitrust enforcement during the Obama presidency. There was a "revolving door" for Google execs and White House officials who would fill positions at both places [2]. When FTC prepared a massive report of Google's antitrust violations [3], the enforcement was quashed as a result of White House lobbying by Google's lobbyists (most of whom worked for the government a year or two prior.) [4] Lots of emails were released under FOIA showing how (former) Google execs who were at the White House told the FTC not to bring on the lawsuit. [5] [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close... [3] https://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ https://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ [4] https://archive.md/74r5F https://archive.md/74r5F [5] https://www.theregister.com/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_ear_on_antitrust_probe/ https://www.theregister.com/2016/08/18/google_had_obamas_ear... [6] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties...

nverno 5y ago
The DOJ has a lawsuit against Google in the works, it's even mentioned in the article. [[I'm hesitant to provide a citation as I'm not sure of the latest source]]
- vmception 5y ago
  Also aside from corruption and capture, there are external forces. States really have little leverage, they want competition but could really just wind up completely unserviced as a corporation says bye bye to their irrelevant market. The feds dont go heavy handed as they have the capability to and massive leverage, but actually debilitating a company could be giving the market to the other remaining companies which from their perspective is worse because they created the monopoly.
  - djbusby 5y ago
    So? Do nothing and let the current monopoly get stronger?
    - nverno 5y ago
      I think it is a safe bet that there will always be new monopolies developing. There are always new markets, and benefits often don't scale linearly with growth. It's a complicated, error-prone business, trying to disrupt monopolies effectively in such a way that is actually beneficial to the community. If you think about it, the cost/benefit analysis is based largely on economic predictions which are never that accurate.
      - djbusby 5y ago
        Shouldn't the DOJ not be concerned with the economic impact? Isn't their objective Justice not Economic Prosperity?
        nverno 5y ago
        In the US, they are concerned with economic impact, they do a whole in-depth economic cost/benefit analysis as part of determining if it's worth breaking up a monopolist. Whatever 'justice' means in this scenario seems highly subjective. If a monopolist was providing by far the best/cheapest goods and services, more people might prefer that scenario to an alternative competitive market with less benefit on average. It's arguably unjust for the government to handicap specific people, but also unjust for others not to feel like they all have a fair shot to capture the market. Any time people, not fate, are in charge of handicapping some people will think they are getting the shaft.
        robbedpeter 5y ago
        That sounds rational, but it's not. There's nobody, public or private sector, nobody at all that can make a real economic assessment of the value of a service line Facebook or Google. Those who claim otherwise are stupid, lying, or selling something. Markets and economics are unpredictable systems that have nothing to do with models of rational actors behaving in their own self interest. They're fundamentally extensions of chaotic biological systems and inherently resistant to oracles as a matter of mathematical reality. What would be rational is if we actually endeavored as a society to make sure everyone is accountable to the same rules to the same degree. By using this magical thinking / cost benefit analysis, we're simply incentivizing victory for the best storytelling middleman.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
During Obama it didn't seem like the problem it is today. I'm not saying it wasen't a problem, but America thought these FANG companies were solving our problems. I never liked Google Executives going to the White House, but I don't think it was because Obama sold out. Tech was very new. Google honestly wanted to help. It seemed like every young guy wanted to be Zuck. Hell even Zuck thought he could run for president one day. It was all so inspiring. Now it's just ugly.
- earthscienceman 5y ago
  You lived in a bubble, nobody wanted to be Zuck in my circles and he was mocked ruthlessly for how out of touch and selfish he was. His comment about becoming president was seen to reinforce that. Facebook was also widely seen as rapidly becoming the place for drama and vapid political commentary. This was ... college during 2008, so not exactly last year.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    Yes, no one I knew wanted to be zuck. But I'm surprised you could find much drama or political commentary through all the app spam of the late 00's in Facebook.
  - stemlord 5y ago
    Same here, so many of us have been eagerly waiting for this bs to unfurl for a very long time now.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  I was there in DC with Google from 2006-2012, and I think that's a fair view. We got asked if we could help, and wanted to help, so we tried where we could. Of course now everyone just wants to paint everything with malicious and negative intent so I'm sure someone will in response, but it really was just a bunch of smart techies trying to help. (Can't speak generally to zuck, but at least from what I saw people didn't really view Facebook and zuck the same way)
- IncRnd 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by Jerry2 5y ago

nverno 5y ago

The DOJ has a lawsuit against Google in the works, it's even mentioned in the article. [[I'm hesitant to provide a citation as I'm not sure of the latest source]]

vmception 5y ago
Also aside from corruption and capture, there are external forces. States really have little leverage, they want competition but could really just wind up completely unserviced as a corporation says bye bye to their irrelevant market. The feds dont go heavy handed as they have the capability to and massive leverage, but actually debilitating a company could be giving the market to the other remaining companies which from their perspective is worse because they created the monopoly.
- djbusby 5y ago
  So? Do nothing and let the current monopoly get stronger?
  - nverno 5y ago
    I think it is a safe bet that there will always be new monopolies developing. There are always new markets, and benefits often don't scale linearly with growth. It's a complicated, error-prone business, trying to disrupt monopolies effectively in such a way that is actually beneficial to the community. If you think about it, the cost/benefit analysis is based largely on economic predictions which are never that accurate.
    - djbusby 5y ago
      Shouldn't the DOJ not be concerned with the economic impact? Isn't their objective Justice not Economic Prosperity?
      - nverno 5y ago
        In the US, they are concerned with economic impact, they do a whole in-depth economic cost/benefit analysis as part of determining if it's worth breaking up a monopolist. Whatever 'justice' means in this scenario seems highly subjective. If a monopolist was providing by far the best/cheapest goods and services, more people might prefer that scenario to an alternative competitive market with less benefit on average. It's arguably unjust for the government to handicap specific people, but also unjust for others not to feel like they all have a fair shot to capture the market. Any time people, not fate, are in charge of handicapping some people will think they are getting the shaft.
        robbedpeter 5y ago
        That sounds rational, but it's not. There's nobody, public or private sector, nobody at all that can make a real economic assessment of the value of a service line Facebook or Google. Those who claim otherwise are stupid, lying, or selling something. Markets and economics are unpredictable systems that have nothing to do with models of rational actors behaving in their own self interest. They're fundamentally extensions of chaotic biological systems and inherently resistant to oracles as a matter of mathematical reality. What would be rational is if we actually endeavored as a society to make sure everyone is accountable to the same rules to the same degree. By using this magical thinking / cost benefit analysis, we're simply incentivizing victory for the best storytelling middleman.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

During Obama it didn't seem like the problem it is today. I'm not saying it wasen't a problem, but America thought these FANG companies were solving our problems. I never liked Google Executives going to the White House, but I don't think it was because Obama sold out. Tech was very new. Google honestly wanted to help. It seemed like every young guy wanted to be Zuck. Hell even Zuck thought he could run for president one day. It was all so inspiring. Now it's just ugly.

earthscienceman 5y ago
You lived in a bubble, nobody wanted to be Zuck in my circles and he was mocked ruthlessly for how out of touch and selfish he was. His comment about becoming president was seen to reinforce that. Facebook was also widely seen as rapidly becoming the place for drama and vapid political commentary. This was ... college during 2008, so not exactly last year.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Yes, no one I knew wanted to be zuck. But I'm surprised you could find much drama or political commentary through all the app spam of the late 00's in Facebook.
- stemlord 5y ago
  Same here, so many of us have been eagerly waiting for this bs to unfurl for a very long time now.
DannyBee 5y ago
I was there in DC with Google from 2006-2012, and I think that's a fair view. We got asked if we could help, and wanted to help, so we tried where we could. Of course now everyone just wants to paint everything with malicious and negative intent so I'm sure someone will in response, but it really was just a bunch of smart techies trying to help. (Can't speak generally to zuck, but at least from what I saw people didn't really view Facebook and zuck the same way)
IncRnd 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]