6 ms·
Today is Antitrust Day. Tell Congress to put people back in control of tech
- sharemywin 5y agoWhy is this limited to tech?
- zrm 5y agoCurrently the thing with enough bipartisan support that it might pass.
- SkyMarshal 5y agoIkr, telecoms are a bigger problem than tech imho.
- missedthecue 5y agoIf you broke Comcast up into smaller companies, I don't think you'd suddenly have multiple different companies competing to dig ditches and lay fiber in each tiny town across America. You'd have Comcast North, Comcast West, Comcast South, and Comcast East, and the situation is literally still the exact same except that the owners of Comcast become a little richer due to the conglomerate discount. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conglomeratediscount.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conglomeratediscount.as...
- andjd 5y agoThere's a good argument that cable/internet providers are a "natural monopoly" in which case governmental ownership, or strict regulation is warranted. I.e. make them utilities.
- AnthonyMouse 5y agoThe physical last mile cable is a natural monopoly. Internet service, i.e. connectivity to the rest of the world, isn't. So it makes sense to separate them. Some countries have local loop unbundling or similar and it works pretty well.
- 1270018080 5y agoBig tech hasn't bribed hard enough to maintain their monopolies. Also the big tech boogeyman is low hanging fruit for culture war conservatives.
- vkou 5y agoThis is the correct take on it. This isn't some call for seizing the means of production. This is the right being upset that it doesn't have as good a grip on the web as it does with traditional mass media (radio, television, print).
- tyrfing 5y agoWeren't both the Senate and House versions introduced by Democrats?
- andreilys 5y agoBig tech is a lightning rod for more than culture war conservatives, the whole liberal establishment blamed tech for getting Trump elected b/c they didn't do enough to combat "misinformation". Luckily this has now been fixed by Fact Checkers (tm), who are able to remain impartial and free of bias to prevent the proliferation of misinformation online.
- maxbond 5y agoWell, there are two specific bills on the table that address big tech, and this campaign is coming from a group with an Internet-focused mission. Recognizing we have a big tech problem doesn't mean we become blind to problems elsewhere.
- ComradePhil 5y agoI think both the bills "The Open App Markets Act" and "The American Innovation and Choice Online Act" are amazing but I don't expect them to get anywhere in the US because of how much collusion tech companies and US politicians have... but I don't understand why other jurisductions like India, China, EU etc. haven't enforced something like these, just from security perspective if not anything else.
- adroitboss 5y ago"Dominant tech companies abuse their gatekeeper status to undermine human rights" How so?
- zackees 5y ago
- Joe_FFTF 5y agoApple frequently censors apps in their App Store at the behest of authoritarian governments. These types of actions impede peoples ability to express themselves freely, and is incredibly destructive to channels of political organizing. Apple has censored Tibetans & religious groups in China and LGBTQ+ content on a staggering scale globally. Local laws may require this, but being a censorship chokepoint is Apple’s choice, a choice made for profit that destroys lives.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- el_ravager 5y agoBy promoting colonization through expansionist, neoliberal policies.
- tempnow987 5y agoIt's interesting that when they say "the people" they really mean "other big corps". That is what is happening here. The FTC and DOJ are going to bat for some of the worst scammers out there. Match.com / Zynga / Fornite etc with their scam subscriptions, lootboxes and more. Apple gatekeeps these scammers (who have free reign on the internet at large) and they flip out. And then, of all the scams online, DOJ to the rescue.
- th33ngineer 5y agoI haven’t yet met a user who’s upset about having to use Apple Pay to check out on their apps or the App Store.
- verve_rat 5y agoHello
- scq 5y agoIf you told them they were paying 30% more for everything they might be.
- deathanatos 5y agoJust under 43% more, no? It's a 30% cut for Apple; for a price of x, the underlying cost, excluding the cut, is 0.7 * x. But you're paying x, which is 100% - x / (0.7 * x) more, or 42.8%.
- scq 5y agoThat's a good point and also kind of horrifying.
- bena 5y agoBut are they? If that 30% take goes away, you think prices will come down by 30%? Or do you think companies will get 30% more profit? Software and other similar goods occupy an interesting space. They obviously take time, effort, and other resources to produce. People should be compensated for that. And people who want to enjoy what's been created should be the ones to compensate for that enjoyment, i.e. if I watch a movie, I should pay to watch that movie in some manner. If I use software, I should pay to use that software. Subscription models, purchase of physical media, etc. are all valid options and each has their place. However, and here's the point, there comes a point where you've collected enough compensation to cover the cost of producing that item. Everything after that is pure profit. And if you're selling at pure profit, the only reason you're looking to avoid that 30% is to claim it yourself. Because you could just give away the product at this point. And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well. And they do deserve to be compensated for what they bring to the table. "You're overpaying by 30%" feels like an argument the competing large corporations want to convince people of as to have the populace on their side. When the reality is that, if that 30% goes away, their profit just increases by 30%.
- snarf21 5y agoCan we just fund the SEC and FTC and force them to do their job?
- hash872 5y agoUnpopular opinion- I don't want 'the people' to be 'in control of tech', or really anyone else's private property. That's just populism, and populism is usually bad. I would like to see more antitrust enforcement (actually I think some of the examples outside of tech are more egregious), and I would like to see dispassionate, highly educated professional civil servants & judges make calls around excessive market concentration based on objective, transparent criteria. This is kind of the key concept that separates a developing country from a 1st world one- do you have a highly professionalized bureaucracy & judiciary working off of technocratic criteria, or are 'the people' (aka local demagogue) just deciding which companies are in favor this month? Like, the arrangement we have now with the Federal Reserve & interest rates is good. Highly educated, objective technocrats who are deliberately insulated from voters make good-faith calls. Meanwhile in every developing country, 'the people' (aka the local strongman) decides what he wants the interest rates to be based on whim. TLDR- antitrust based on objective rule by experts good, antitrust based on populism/demagoguery/'the people' (whatever that means), probably bad. I hate this leftist framing that just adds 'the people' to every decision in society
- andjd 5y agoI don't disagree with you that antitrust is nuanced and complicated and we should have smart, dedicated professionals handling the day-to-day enforcement. But the dominant position for decades on antitrust, from academics, judges, and bureaucrats -- regardless of party -- has been that antitrust is not a big deal, and they've rubber-stamped a massive consolidation of American enterprise across vast swaths of the economy. It's not out-of-place for 'we the people' to express that something's wrong here. Farmers can feel it when John Deere prohibits them from repairing their own tractors, and there's not a good alternative they can buy. Homeowners can feel it when the price of 2 by 4s spikes because a few companies run all the sawmills and would rather charge higher prices than increase capacity to meet demand. Flyers feel it when all the major airlines decide to charge extra for checked bags within a few months of each other. Everyone feels it when they see how wealth is more concentrated at the top and how it feels harder for the average young person to have the same standard of living as their parents and grandparents. It's also not complicated to understand the root of the issue. That companies with monopoly power will charge more and produce less is a bedrock of economics taught in high school. It's also well understood that an industry dominated by a small number of firms will act somewhat like a monopoly because there's less competitive pressure. So yes, it's better to have experts enforce antitrust. But it's also incumbent upon "the people" to demand accountability and reform when the status quo is failing them.
- maxbond 5y agoI'd like to share my response here: To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my concerns with the tech industry, and to urge you to vote for the Open App Markets Act and American Innovation and Choice Act. I am a software engineer at a Silicon Valley startup company, and a lifelong member of Silicon Valley startup culture. Nearly every job I have ever had has been at some type of startup, and have worked on projects in health care, renewable energy, and artificial intelligence. I am no crank or Luddite. Over my life I have watched Silicon Valley become less and less about genuine innovation and more about cynical plays for money and power, with the aesthetics of innovation providing a fig leaf - carpet baggers in black turtle necks. For many, the goal is no longer to create winning products that create new industries. The goal is to lure people and businesses into walled gardens, and to trap them there. We see this in the rise of so-called Platform Capitalism. Platform Capitalism is a threat to consumer choice and freedom, and a threat to small businesses; it is a new form of monopolizing tactic. Under the guise of creating a space for innovation and competition, individual users and businesses alike are lured on to the platform, where they are subject to all manner of abuses. App stores charge exorbitant rates (as much as 30%) to process transactions; many feel credit card transaction fees are too rich at 1 to 3%. These companies often compete on their own platforms, creating stupefying conflicts of interest. Amazon is particularly egregious, illegally using market data to select their Amazon Basics products. This is a betrayal of the small business owners who entrusted Amazon with their livelihood. I once again urge you to vote for the Open App Markets Act and American Innovation and Choice Act. Thank you for your time and public service.
- charcircuit 5y agoYou can't just make up random holidays. No, it's not antitrust day just because you said it is.
- Joe_FFTF 5y agoHere is the text of both bills for people who would like to check them out Open App Markets Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271... American Innovation and Choice Online Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/299...
- root_axis 5y agoFrom the text of the American Choice and Innovation Online Act: COVERED PLATFORM.—The term “covered platform” means an online platform— (A) that has been designated as a “covered platform” under section 2(d); or (B) that— (i) at the time of the Commission’s or the Department of Justice’s designation under section 2(d), or any of the twelve months preceding that time, or in any of the 12 months preceding the filing of a complaint for an alleged violation of this Act— (I) has at least 50,000,000 United States-based monthly active users on the online platform; or (II) has at least 100,000 United States-based monthly active business users on the platform; (ii) is owned or controlled by a person with net annual sales, or a market capitalization greater than $600,000,000,000, adjusted for inflation on the basis of the Consumer Price Index, at the time of the Commission’s or the Department of Justice’s designation under section 2(d) or any of the two years preceding that time, or at any time in the 2 years preceding the filing of a complaint for an alleged violation of this Act; and (iii) is a critical trading partner for the sale or provision of any product or service offered on or directly related to the online platform. -------------------- I like almost all of the provisions specified in this bill, but these "covered platform" conditions are totally absurd and in my view make this bill fatally flawed. These laws should apply to everyone, otherwise they simply incentivize the very behavior the bill is penalizing for every other company in the market. This is because exploiting the targeted behaviors will create a massive competitive advantage next to the handful of larger players that cannot engage in them. Further, metrics like MAUs are arbitrarily defined and arbitrarily measured even without getting into the question of bots, shared accounts, and users with multiple accounts. Finally, the idea that the legality of a business strategy should be determined by how much an owner of the company is worth is ridiculous on its face; if a practice is deemed illegal it shouldn't be excepted just because the owner of the businesses loses some net worth. The Open App Markets Act also has a similar provision for 50 million users. Why? Stop trying to carve out special cases for particular businesses, this is a fragile and disingenuous approach to legislation.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago> This is because exploiting the targeted behaviors will create a massive competitive advantage next to the handful of larger players that cannot engage in them. But then they'd either get large enough to have the rules apply, or there would be a large number of smaller players competing with each other -- which is also pretty great. > Finally, the idea that the legality of a business strategy should be determined by how much an owner of the company is worth is ridiculous on its face Corporations are "people." That's there to prevent companies from pretending their operations don't meet the total by using subsidiaries. Notice that no current human has that net worth.
- Epiphany21 5y agoPeople have such short memories. It wasn't so long ago that mainframes were rented at exorbitant prices and all the users connected through dumb terminals so they could run bottom of the barrel user-hostile software (which was often also rented). Now it's called "cloud computing", and you connect through a similarly dumbed down device that fits in your pocket and spies on you. No lessons have been learned.