3 ms·

I'm kind of sour on antitrust as much of a solution for today's issues. If we had five smaller Googles doing the same thing what would that make better?

booleandilemma 4y ago
They wouldn't be smaller Googles, they'd be different companies altogether, with their own practices and work cultures. They'd have less bureaucracy, which might help them to innovate and move faster, and in different directions from each other.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  In absolute terms more bureaucracy is required now because they must all duplicate administration that they can currently share.
  - dannyr 4y ago
    Would you rather have McDonalds and Burger King operating all restaurants instead of having millions of small restaurants?
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      Interesting example since I’d bet a majority of independent restaurants are sourcing the ingredients from Sysco. Anyway, restaurants, maybe not, but I usually prefer dealing with large companies because they are more reliable.
NegativeLatency 4y ago
Might be easier to get someone on the phone for support, one corp also wouldn't have all that profit sloshing around to go and unfairly dominate other markets.
rodgerd 4y ago
Forcing, say, the Google OS (Android/Chromebook) and Browser business to justify its existence independent of the ad-selling business, and YouTube to justify its video-hosting existence independent of the other two would certainly dramatically modify the landscape for all three.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  That seems likely, but I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that we'll like the result.
tgv 4y ago
I don't understand what you'd want instead. The way I see it, antitrust is the lowest bar in consumer (and business) protection. I'd advocate for more regulation, much more, but that seems unreachable in the current political situation in the US.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  I suppose what I'm saying is I don't think antitrust is necessarily beneficial for consumers or client businesses. It could be. But generally speaking, large companies pay their employees better, are more likely to comply with regulations, and so on. Having businesses be small for the sake of being small is not necessarily good.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    They are more likely to comply with regulations because they effectively get to write them. Smaller is better because a small company doesn't have the resources to corrupt the regulators.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      Regulatory capture is a real concern but no, small companies just flagrantly violate the law and get away with it all the time. The stakes are higher for established ones. Many regulations also specifically exempt small companies.
ricardo81 4y ago
Yes, five smaller Google's would be good, 4 more points of view. Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter seems to have highlighted anyone with the greatest of intentions is never going to please everyone, and that choice and freedom to express that choice is good.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter seems to have highlighted anyone with the greatest of intentions is never going to please everyone I dunno, wouldn’t that require assuming that Elon Musk had “the greatest of intentions”, as well as being a generalization to “never” from a single failure?
  - ricardo81 4y ago
    I think in his case he saw the flaws with Twitter, the bans, the algorithmic black box and thought he could bring something better to the table. Perhaps he learnt better after the fact. At least having more private black box algos gives people a choice rather than a monopoly on choice.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Consider this: one of the many complaints about big tech is companies having too much personal data on customers. But if we feel one entity having the data is bad, why is several having it better? That seems worse. Now it's even harder to keep track of.
  - ricardo81 4y ago
    But most alternatives choose not to retain personal data and have much more stringent privacy policies. Realistically I don't think the average individual can fathom how much personal data the likes of Google has on people. Small example, I deleted my entire Youtube subscription/history several times, I keep getting recommended the same things. Clearly there's more to 'deleting it entirely'.
    - 4y ago

booleandilemma 4y ago

They wouldn't be smaller Googles, they'd be different companies altogether, with their own practices and work cultures. They'd have less bureaucracy, which might help them to innovate and move faster, and in different directions from each other.

emodendroket 4y ago
In absolute terms more bureaucracy is required now because they must all duplicate administration that they can currently share.
- dannyr 4y ago
  Would you rather have McDonalds and Burger King operating all restaurants instead of having millions of small restaurants?
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Interesting example since I’d bet a majority of independent restaurants are sourcing the ingredients from Sysco. Anyway, restaurants, maybe not, but I usually prefer dealing with large companies because they are more reliable.

NegativeLatency 4y ago

Might be easier to get someone on the phone for support, one corp also wouldn't have all that profit sloshing around to go and unfairly dominate other markets.

rodgerd 4y ago

Forcing, say, the Google OS (Android/Chromebook) and Browser business to justify its existence independent of the ad-selling business, and YouTube to justify its video-hosting existence independent of the other two would certainly dramatically modify the landscape for all three.

emodendroket 4y ago
That seems likely, but I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that we'll like the result.

tgv 4y ago

I don't understand what you'd want instead. The way I see it, antitrust is the lowest bar in consumer (and business) protection. I'd advocate for more regulation, much more, but that seems unreachable in the current political situation in the US.

emodendroket 4y ago
I suppose what I'm saying is I don't think antitrust is necessarily beneficial for consumers or client businesses. It could be. But generally speaking, large companies pay their employees better, are more likely to comply with regulations, and so on. Having businesses be small for the sake of being small is not necessarily good.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  They are more likely to comply with regulations because they effectively get to write them. Smaller is better because a small company doesn't have the resources to corrupt the regulators.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Regulatory capture is a real concern but no, small companies just flagrantly violate the law and get away with it all the time. The stakes are higher for established ones. Many regulations also specifically exempt small companies.

ricardo81 4y ago

Yes, five smaller Google's would be good, 4 more points of view. Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter seems to have highlighted anyone with the greatest of intentions is never going to please everyone, and that choice and freedom to express that choice is good.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter seems to have highlighted anyone with the greatest of intentions is never going to please everyone I dunno, wouldn’t that require assuming that Elon Musk had “the greatest of intentions”, as well as being a generalization to “never” from a single failure?
- ricardo81 4y ago
  I think in his case he saw the flaws with Twitter, the bans, the algorithmic black box and thought he could bring something better to the table. Perhaps he learnt better after the fact. At least having more private black box algos gives people a choice rather than a monopoly on choice.
emodendroket 4y ago
Consider this: one of the many complaints about big tech is companies having too much personal data on customers. But if we feel one entity having the data is bad, why is several having it better? That seems worse. Now it's even harder to keep track of.
- ricardo81 4y ago
  But most alternatives choose not to retain personal data and have much more stringent privacy policies. Realistically I don't think the average individual can fathom how much personal data the likes of Google has on people. Small example, I deleted my entire Youtube subscription/history several times, I keep getting recommended the same things. Clearly there's more to 'deleting it entirely'.
  - 4y ago