4 ms·

Consumers Would Pay the Price for Breaking Up Big Tech

3 points by Bostonian 4y ago

Bostonian 4y ago
The paper cited is "The Economic Costs of Structural Separation, Line of Business Restrictions, and Common Carrier Regulation of Online Platforms and Marketplaces: A Conceptual Assessment" https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2021/Platform_Regulation_Conceptual_10_20_21.pdf https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2021/Plat...
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  More on NERA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERA_Economic_Consulting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERA_Economic_Consulting
Quequau 4y ago
Consumers are already paying the price for the decades long anti-competitive, anti-consumer, anti-worker, monopolistic, and manipulative practices of the Big Tech firms.
hansword 4y ago
What is the price? shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg Where do I sign? Can we make it same-day delivery?
smt88 4y ago
1. We are paying a higher price for not breaking them up. Their oligopoly is threatening to the survival of democracy and society. 2. If consumers paid for breaking up the monopolies of the Gilded Age or even the Microsoft of the 90s, no one cares or remembers. We just remember that it was a good idea and made the world and economy a lot better. We're in a new Gilded Age and it is a threat to human survival.
jleyank 4y ago
Given that most people don’t pay for Facebook or google they’re not going to be bothered by not paying them more. All those ads and all that collected data isn’t helpful to the eyeballs just those running the pictures.
- Bostonian 4y ago
  Without ad revenue some free services may no longer be free.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Understood. But then people would be able to evaluate their worth, and if smaller it’s possible that “small, tailored companies” might be able to thrive or survive without being killed or consumed.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    That would be an improvement. It's also not the only option. Public funding or a mechanical royalties paid in large part through broadband providers (ISPs / telcos / wireless providers), possibly along the lines of ASCAP / Harry Fox, might be an option. "Free" Internet is not free. Advertising support is paid through spending on consumer products. That works out to north of $117/year per person in FB's most lucrative markets (US/EU/Japan), of about 1 billion people. That's $468 for a household of four. For Facebook alone. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32118404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32118404 Total global ad spend was $600 billion as of a few years back, or $2,400 for that household of four. Are you realy getting $2,400 worth of value via clickbait, disinformation, outrage media, and the like? Keep in mind that substantive content fares quite poorly under the "attention economy". I've suggested an ISP-based content fee, indexed to regional wealth (more expensive in higher-income / higher-wealth areas). See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329203

3 points by Bostonian 4y ago

The paper cited is "The Economic Costs of Structural Separation, Line of Business Restrictions, and Common Carrier Regulation of Online Platforms and Marketplaces: A Conceptual Assessment" https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2021/Platform_Regulation_Conceptual_10_20_21.pdf https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2021/Plat...

dredmorbius 4y ago
More on NERA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERA_Economic_Consulting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERA_Economic_Consulting

Quequau 4y ago

Consumers are already paying the price for the decades long anti-competitive, anti-consumer, anti-worker, monopolistic, and manipulative practices of the Big Tech firms.

hansword 4y ago

What is the price? shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg Where do I sign? Can we make it same-day delivery?

smt88 4y ago

1. We are paying a higher price for not breaking them up. Their oligopoly is threatening to the survival of democracy and society. 2. If consumers paid for breaking up the monopolies of the Gilded Age or even the Microsoft of the 90s, no one cares or remembers. We just remember that it was a good idea and made the world and economy a lot better. We're in a new Gilded Age and it is a threat to human survival.

jleyank 4y ago

Given that most people don’t pay for Facebook or google they’re not going to be bothered by not paying them more. All those ads and all that collected data isn’t helpful to the eyeballs just those running the pictures.

Bostonian 4y ago
Without ad revenue some free services may no longer be free.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Understood. But then people would be able to evaluate their worth, and if smaller it’s possible that “small, tailored companies” might be able to thrive or survive without being killed or consumed.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  That would be an improvement. It's also not the only option. Public funding or a mechanical royalties paid in large part through broadband providers (ISPs / telcos / wireless providers), possibly along the lines of ASCAP / Harry Fox, might be an option. "Free" Internet is not free. Advertising support is paid through spending on consumer products. That works out to north of $117/year per person in FB's most lucrative markets (US/EU/Japan), of about 1 billion people. That's $468 for a household of four. For Facebook alone. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32118404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32118404 Total global ad spend was $600 billion as of a few years back, or $2,400 for that household of four. Are you realy getting $2,400 worth of value via clickbait, disinformation, outrage media, and the like? Keep in mind that substantive content fares quite poorly under the "attention economy". I've suggested an ISP-based content fee, indexed to regional wealth (more expensive in higher-income / higher-wealth areas). See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329203