4 ms·

Also, you're not allowed to > preference the products, services, or lines of business of the covered platform operator over those of another business user on t

Also, you're not allowed to > preference the products, services, or lines of business of the covered platform operator over those of another business user on the covered platform in a manner that would materially harm competition I really like this when you think about the problem that it's trying to solve (Amazon ranking Amazon products at the top, or Google showing Google Flights above all other services). But in practice, how in the world is this enforceable/provable? Let's say you Google "flights from tucson to denver". If it shows Google Flights in the search results at all, whether it's above Expedia, or Yakak, or United, or something no one would use for that flight like Emirates, couldn't you argue in court that it's "preferencing the product of the covered platform"? How do you explain the output of a blackbox ML model? Even if you can exactly prove why a result was ordered the way it was, how do you prove that it's preferencing it? Doesn't any ordering according to the likelihood that a user will engage with the service have a chance of "harming competition"?

scarface74 4y ago
If I had a VC firm, should HN be forced to give my post looking to hire the same prominence it gives their own? Should grocery stores not be allowed to market their own brands? Shouid a TV network not be allowed to market its own shows above that of competitors?
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  If any of those entities have a functional monopoly, then yes they will (and in my opinion should) experience restrictions on those activities. The bill is drafted to target the big players. Antitrust laws aren't meant to be fair, they're specifically intended to make business harder for the monopolies affected and easier for their competition. They're meant to put a finger on the scales to counterbalance the massive anti-competitive advantages afforded by having a monopoly. The most benign of actions can make competing basically impossible when they're performed by a company that has complete control over the market. We do this because monopolies in a vacuum are self-reinforcing and that leads to dysfunction in the market. Monopolies don't have to have a better product or service to remain a monopoly - the power to crush the competition afforded by having captured the market is often enough to maintain it.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Which one of those “monopolistic” companies are actually legally a monopoly? For instance, does poor little Walmart - the largest retailer in the US - really need help competing with Amazon? Much more travel already goes through Priceline than Google. Do people really not know about Priceline from the years of Shatner commercials?
    - DoughnutHole 4y ago
      Google is unambiguously a monopoly - they have a 90%+ market share in search. Whether or not they're engaging in anti-competitive behaviour is the big question - whether or not they have a monopoly in search is not really debatable. For example Standard Oil, the 20th century poster child for monopolistic abuses and origin of modern anti-trust law also had a market share of ~90%. [EDIT because I found bad data about Walmart] Walmart is definitely also a monopoly or close to it - they have a share of ~70% of the grocery market, and should also be subject to restrictive antitrust rules, or even broken up. They don't have a monopoly in online retail where Amazon controls over ~55% of the market. But the fact that Walmart has a monopoly in one industry does not say anything about possible anti-competitive behaviour by Amazon in another. Amazon's not quite a monopoly in online retail yet but it's definitely trending in a worrying direction.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        By what definition is 55% a “monopoly”? And by “breaking up Walmart”, what do you suggest? That they are forced to remove groceries from their stores? In “online travel sites”, Google is a tiny player. https://www.statista.com/topics/2704/online-travel-market/#dossierKeyfigures https://www.statista.com/topics/2704/online-travel-market/#d...

scarface74 4y ago

If I had a VC firm, should HN be forced to give my post looking to hire the same prominence it gives their own? Should grocery stores not be allowed to market their own brands? Shouid a TV network not be allowed to market its own shows above that of competitors?

DoughnutHole 4y ago
If any of those entities have a functional monopoly, then yes they will (and in my opinion should) experience restrictions on those activities. The bill is drafted to target the big players. Antitrust laws aren't meant to be fair, they're specifically intended to make business harder for the monopolies affected and easier for their competition. They're meant to put a finger on the scales to counterbalance the massive anti-competitive advantages afforded by having a monopoly. The most benign of actions can make competing basically impossible when they're performed by a company that has complete control over the market. We do this because monopolies in a vacuum are self-reinforcing and that leads to dysfunction in the market. Monopolies don't have to have a better product or service to remain a monopoly - the power to crush the competition afforded by having captured the market is often enough to maintain it.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Which one of those “monopolistic” companies are actually legally a monopoly? For instance, does poor little Walmart - the largest retailer in the US - really need help competing with Amazon? Much more travel already goes through Priceline than Google. Do people really not know about Priceline from the years of Shatner commercials?
  - DoughnutHole 4y ago
    Google is unambiguously a monopoly - they have a 90%+ market share in search. Whether or not they're engaging in anti-competitive behaviour is the big question - whether or not they have a monopoly in search is not really debatable. For example Standard Oil, the 20th century poster child for monopolistic abuses and origin of modern anti-trust law also had a market share of ~90%. [EDIT because I found bad data about Walmart] Walmart is definitely also a monopoly or close to it - they have a share of ~70% of the grocery market, and should also be subject to restrictive antitrust rules, or even broken up. They don't have a monopoly in online retail where Amazon controls over ~55% of the market. But the fact that Walmart has a monopoly in one industry does not say anything about possible anti-competitive behaviour by Amazon in another. Amazon's not quite a monopoly in online retail yet but it's definitely trending in a worrying direction.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      By what definition is 55% a “monopoly”? And by “breaking up Walmart”, what do you suggest? That they are forced to remove groceries from their stores? In “online travel sites”, Google is a tiny player. https://www.statista.com/topics/2704/online-travel-market/#dossierKeyfigures https://www.statista.com/topics/2704/online-travel-market/#d...