4 ms·

It’s more or less undeniable that if you cracked down on Google, their end users would be negatively affected, yes. The question is whether or not better compa

It’s more or less undeniable that if you cracked down on Google, their end users would be negatively affected, yes. The question is whether or not better companies would be born and ultimately provide even greater services to the same set of customers. That - is what is obviously harder to prove. Personally I think the answer is to simply say that after a certain reach per industry a company must provide “access” to platforms or pay a percentage of revenue to nurture the smallest competitors. —- As an aside, I believe the bill in question (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/Banning_Surveillance_Advertising_Act.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/B...) is dumb. Basically it bans ads as a model for monetization. Terrible idea imho.

frabcus 5y ago
Not at all - the improved competition would help existing users by encouraging innovation and improving search quality. For example - by offering a way for any provider to embed info boxes and search UIs, all competing with each other. Or by reducing adverts to increase better quality organic results (Google can have much less cash and still run fine). Or by solving all the basic search relevancy flaws discussed on Hacker News in recent weeks.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  The things you’re stating are hardly obvious. In fact everything you’re saying is already true - providers can already compete with Google on search. It’s true that Google can run in less money, but the argument can’t simply be that. Otherwise you’re effectively saying companies cannot make as much money as possible in general, no?
  - frabcus 5y ago
    Yes, harmful behaviours by companies have to be regulated. We don’t let chemical waste get poured into rivers. Likewise, we shouldn’t allow harmful behaviour online. We have to as a society agree what that means, which is what is now finally happening. Ultimately the businesses will still be viable, just different. Most likely more innovative and making better products in more competitive environments.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      What behaviors are happening that are akin to chemical waste?

frabcus 5y ago

Not at all - the improved competition would help existing users by encouraging innovation and improving search quality. For example - by offering a way for any provider to embed info boxes and search UIs, all competing with each other. Or by reducing adverts to increase better quality organic results (Google can have much less cash and still run fine). Or by solving all the basic search relevancy flaws discussed on Hacker News in recent weeks.

endisneigh 5y ago
The things you’re stating are hardly obvious. In fact everything you’re saying is already true - providers can already compete with Google on search. It’s true that Google can run in less money, but the argument can’t simply be that. Otherwise you’re effectively saying companies cannot make as much money as possible in general, no?
- frabcus 5y ago
  Yes, harmful behaviours by companies have to be regulated. We don’t let chemical waste get poured into rivers. Likewise, we shouldn’t allow harmful behaviour online. We have to as a society agree what that means, which is what is now finally happening. Ultimately the businesses will still be viable, just different. Most likely more innovative and making better products in more competitive environments.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    What behaviors are happening that are akin to chemical waste?