5 ms·

> This is my problem with de facto utilities that are not regulated like utilities. No, this is your problem with monopolies. The fix is anti-trust enforcement

> This is my problem with de facto utilities that are not regulated like utilities. No, this is your problem with monopolies. The fix is anti-trust enforcement, not slapping the word "utility" around.

rnk 4y ago
Antitrust enforcement is so scattershot, varying over time and depending on current us administration. It's like an entire higher level of abstraction over the problem. And in practice we have extremely little antitrust enforcement in the us over the last 20 years. We'd have to theoretically fix antitrust enforcement, then eventually "market forces" would force google say, to improve customer service. Google is not going to change, they are one of the trillion dollar babies and they can just ignore us. Just like apple. What anti-trust enforcement could cause them to change? I'm skeptical the new EU rules about how "open install of apps to breakup app-store monopolies" will work to effect change.
- adamc 4y ago
  Google should be broken up and forced to change.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Google ads are a natural monopoly, like power lines. What are you going to do, go to 1/3 of its ad customers and tell them they're switching to Southwestern Google while another 1/3 have to switch to Pacific Google?
    - parasubvert 4y ago
      This assumes Google search - the main reason they have a business - will remain popular. That’s a very big assumption. Google’s monopoly isn’t “natural”. It’s temporary.
      - astrange 4y ago
        I was thinking of AdSense.
  - hitpointdrew 4y ago
    And then one of them becomes dominate after 5 years, and the other(s) fold. It's an inevitable problem. The only way to "break them apart" that would make any sense at all would be to break off distinct divisions, like Search, YouTube, Gmail, Google Cloud, etc. Into separate companies. Then forbidding them to acquire each other, and generally be extremely pessimistic/restrictive if any of them attempt to acquire any company at all.
    - josephg 4y ago
      Sounds like a good plan. I think the tech ecosystem would benefit greatly from more competition.
- fmajid 4y ago
  Longer than that: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/robert-borks-america/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/robert-borks-america...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrtksn 4y ago
Nope, Google is utility. It is embedded on how the web works, it's not a matter of not having an alternative but it is a matter on Google defining how everything works. Whatever Google chooses to do, it becomes a standart. People design their products to fit Google's infrastructure. When that infrastructure rejects you or your product, you are in trouble because everything is build around the assumption that you will be reachable over Google.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I think this is about as silly as claiming that Microsoft controls how all computers work, or that Apple has the final say over every smartphone. Chrome has the advantage here, but that doesn't make them a defacto monopoly. If your definition was right, every other member of FAANG would probably have worse crimes to answer to wrt "defining how everything works". Even the people standing behind Apple have lost this fight, since even Safari has admitted it was wrong about PWAs. Plus, it's not like Google is all-powerful here. Negative public response got FLOC shelved before it hit Chrome betas, and they still don't have the gall to bring it up again. Google is not a utility any more than Apple or Spotify is a utility. And if we're going to break up both of those companies, we may as well just dissolve every other Fortune 500 company while we're at it.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > If your definition was right, every other member of FAANG would probably have worse crimes to answer to wrt "defining how everything works". Now you're getting it. > we may as well just dissolve every other Fortune 500 company while we're at it. Sounds great. Let's start with Chevron.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Except I don't agree with their definition. Google's ability to "choose how things work" comes from their investment in the web as a platform for things like GSuite, Google Meet and more. Plenty of other companies have the ability to speak up, but none of the big players (Apple, Microsoft) do because it would sabotage their market position. So, Google is the only one left making significant changes, aside from open source contributors/committees. > Sounds great. Now you're grossly missing the point. The problem isn't the status quo, it's the system. Tearing down Standard Oil will leave a power vacuum, and adequate incentive from suppliers and processors will just make another monopoly. If your goal is to get rid of those companies, that's a pretty counterintuitive way to do it. Personally, I think our world needs to start taking digital standards more seriously, like ISO but taken to the next level. We let ourselves get in these positions because we don't force these companies to provide interoperability or data ownership. Capitalism can work in the tech sector at this scale, but we need better regulation and more strict rules around proprietary interfaces. At least, that's the accelerationist mindset; we can languish in technological fiefdom for as long as we'd like, I'm sure FAANG doesn't mind.

rnk 4y ago

Antitrust enforcement is so scattershot, varying over time and depending on current us administration. It's like an entire higher level of abstraction over the problem. And in practice we have extremely little antitrust enforcement in the us over the last 20 years. We'd have to theoretically fix antitrust enforcement, then eventually "market forces" would force google say, to improve customer service. Google is not going to change, they are one of the trillion dollar babies and they can just ignore us. Just like apple. What anti-trust enforcement could cause them to change? I'm skeptical the new EU rules about how "open install of apps to breakup app-store monopolies" will work to effect change.

adamc 4y ago
Google should be broken up and forced to change.
- astrange 4y ago
  Google ads are a natural monopoly, like power lines. What are you going to do, go to 1/3 of its ad customers and tell them they're switching to Southwestern Google while another 1/3 have to switch to Pacific Google?
  - parasubvert 4y ago
    This assumes Google search - the main reason they have a business - will remain popular. That’s a very big assumption. Google’s monopoly isn’t “natural”. It’s temporary.
    - astrange 4y ago
      I was thinking of AdSense.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  And then one of them becomes dominate after 5 years, and the other(s) fold. It's an inevitable problem. The only way to "break them apart" that would make any sense at all would be to break off distinct divisions, like Search, YouTube, Gmail, Google Cloud, etc. Into separate companies. Then forbidding them to acquire each other, and generally be extremely pessimistic/restrictive if any of them attempt to acquire any company at all.
  - josephg 4y ago
    Sounds like a good plan. I think the tech ecosystem would benefit greatly from more competition.
fmajid 4y ago
Longer than that: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/robert-borks-america/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/robert-borks-america...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrtksn 4y ago

Nope, Google is utility. It is embedded on how the web works, it's not a matter of not having an alternative but it is a matter on Google defining how everything works. Whatever Google chooses to do, it becomes a standart. People design their products to fit Google's infrastructure. When that infrastructure rejects you or your product, you are in trouble because everything is build around the assumption that you will be reachable over Google.

smoldesu 4y ago
I think this is about as silly as claiming that Microsoft controls how all computers work, or that Apple has the final say over every smartphone. Chrome has the advantage here, but that doesn't make them a defacto monopoly. If your definition was right, every other member of FAANG would probably have worse crimes to answer to wrt "defining how everything works". Even the people standing behind Apple have lost this fight, since even Safari has admitted it was wrong about PWAs. Plus, it's not like Google is all-powerful here. Negative public response got FLOC shelved before it hit Chrome betas, and they still don't have the gall to bring it up again. Google is not a utility any more than Apple or Spotify is a utility. And if we're going to break up both of those companies, we may as well just dissolve every other Fortune 500 company while we're at it.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > If your definition was right, every other member of FAANG would probably have worse crimes to answer to wrt "defining how everything works". Now you're getting it. > we may as well just dissolve every other Fortune 500 company while we're at it. Sounds great. Let's start with Chevron.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Except I don't agree with their definition. Google's ability to "choose how things work" comes from their investment in the web as a platform for things like GSuite, Google Meet and more. Plenty of other companies have the ability to speak up, but none of the big players (Apple, Microsoft) do because it would sabotage their market position. So, Google is the only one left making significant changes, aside from open source contributors/committees. > Sounds great. Now you're grossly missing the point. The problem isn't the status quo, it's the system. Tearing down Standard Oil will leave a power vacuum, and adequate incentive from suppliers and processors will just make another monopoly. If your goal is to get rid of those companies, that's a pretty counterintuitive way to do it. Personally, I think our world needs to start taking digital standards more seriously, like ISO but taken to the next level. We let ourselves get in these positions because we don't force these companies to provide interoperability or data ownership. Capitalism can work in the tech sector at this scale, but we need better regulation and more strict rules around proprietary interfaces. At least, that's the accelerationist mindset; we can languish in technological fiefdom for as long as we'd like, I'm sure FAANG doesn't mind.