4 ms·

This is egregious imo. Amazon needs to be broken up

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bmitc 4y ago
A deleted comment: > Is it? Newspapers aren’t exactly thriving and it’s not because of Amazon. Would you have a problem if a random local newspaper company had significant influence over what 50% of the U.S. bought, watched, read, listened to, ate, and needed for medical purposes in addition to market power that made it stay that way?
montagg 4y ago
Walmart too. And Target. And grocery stores. I am not sure people are really prepared to take the implication of how unfair Amazon seems to its logical conclusion, because it means undermining a lot of what makes us comfortable in modern life under capitalism. Regulation targeted at increasing competition (breakups, rather than regulation Amazon as a monopoly of a kind and entrenching them) might result in a better outcome, or it just might make things more expensive and then you have to repeat the same breakup and regulation process again every 15 years.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Isn't that inevitably the result if you want the cheapest thing? I pay a little more and I never shop at amazon.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > undermining a lot of what makes us comfortable in modern life under capitalism I read Wealth of Nations, did I miss the part where it says: "you should have a single global company control most of the market"? Every economist writes about importance of competition. If you want to keep around giant monopolies, you are not capitalist.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    On a global scale, it helps if your country is where all the biggest companies are coming from, especially to compete with big companies from other countries.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      You could make the same argument fir trade barriers, protectionism, subsidies, etc. It also comes across as "two wrongs make a right"
TheDong 4y ago
The retail and ads portions here seem inextricably linked. It does not seem possible to treat those as separate things. What's more, if you tell amazon "no more retail ads", surely they can just do what normal stores do, and charge a slotting fee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee) instead. If right now the first 10 results on amazon.com for "mattress" are all ads because those companies paid $1000 to be advertised first, how is that meaningfully different from amazon only carrying 10 mattresses at all, and instead of charging ad fees, charging a $1000 slotting fee to the mattress companies? I am not particularly arguing for or against anything, just speculating that breaking it up would, in practice, be hard. Perhaps some other regulatory action would work better.
- junofan 4y ago
  There’s a $40bn/yr business here. I’m sure somebody can figure out how to decouple. Also, many breakup scenarios for Amazon involve spinning out the fulfillment business. Who cares if Amazon.com stocks 10 mattresses if I can just build a competitor stocking 10,000 while using the same infrastructure.
MangoCoffee 4y ago
retail stores have been charging for shelf space for decades.
dralley 4y ago
Lots of these companies need to be broken up. Facebook in particular given that their erroneous metrics literally put several media companies out of business. Not only did they charge for nonexistent engagement, but the BS engagement numbers they were providing were so enticing that it created a huge push towards expensive-to-create video content. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccurate-video-metrics-inflation-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccu...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  thats some proper good old fashioned fraud
throwswaydollar 4y ago
Google Should be broken up first
Zetice 4y ago
What? Why? Volume of revenue is not a reason to break up a company.
- oblio 4y ago
  Conflict of interest. Making a platform and using it yourself naturally corrupts you, the incentives are too strong.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    What interest is conflicting, exactly? Seems like interests would be pretty perfectly aligned to maximize revenue.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Yes, at the expwnse of their customers and the law. Thats what conflict of onterest means
      - Zetice 4y ago
        That doesn’t make sense, because if their costumer isn’t satisfied, they can use another online store.
- freejazz 4y ago
  It could be if it makes up the entire market...
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Except it doesn't, not even remotely; there are dozens of other ways of buying things online, people just choose not to.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Except the issue isn't whether there are "dozens of other ways of buying things online, people just choose not to" but whether Amazon's market share is so large as to prohibit anyone from being able to compete with it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

A deleted comment: > Is it? Newspapers aren’t exactly thriving and it’s not because of Amazon. Would you have a problem if a random local newspaper company had significant influence over what 50% of the U.S. bought, watched, read, listened to, ate, and needed for medical purposes in addition to market power that made it stay that way?

montagg 4y ago

Walmart too. And Target. And grocery stores. I am not sure people are really prepared to take the implication of how unfair Amazon seems to its logical conclusion, because it means undermining a lot of what makes us comfortable in modern life under capitalism. Regulation targeted at increasing competition (breakups, rather than regulation Amazon as a monopoly of a kind and entrenching them) might result in a better outcome, or it just might make things more expensive and then you have to repeat the same breakup and regulation process again every 15 years.

freejazz 4y ago
Isn't that inevitably the result if you want the cheapest thing? I pay a little more and I never shop at amazon.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> undermining a lot of what makes us comfortable in modern life under capitalism I read Wealth of Nations, did I miss the part where it says: "you should have a single global company control most of the market"? Every economist writes about importance of competition. If you want to keep around giant monopolies, you are not capitalist.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  On a global scale, it helps if your country is where all the biggest companies are coming from, especially to compete with big companies from other countries.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    You could make the same argument fir trade barriers, protectionism, subsidies, etc. It also comes across as "two wrongs make a right"

TheDong 4y ago

The retail and ads portions here seem inextricably linked. It does not seem possible to treat those as separate things. What's more, if you tell amazon "no more retail ads", surely they can just do what normal stores do, and charge a slotting fee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee) instead. If right now the first 10 results on amazon.com for "mattress" are all ads because those companies paid $1000 to be advertised first, how is that meaningfully different from amazon only carrying 10 mattresses at all, and instead of charging ad fees, charging a $1000 slotting fee to the mattress companies? I am not particularly arguing for or against anything, just speculating that breaking it up would, in practice, be hard. Perhaps some other regulatory action would work better.

junofan 4y ago
There’s a $40bn/yr business here. I’m sure somebody can figure out how to decouple. Also, many breakup scenarios for Amazon involve spinning out the fulfillment business. Who cares if Amazon.com stocks 10 mattresses if I can just build a competitor stocking 10,000 while using the same infrastructure.

MangoCoffee 4y ago

retail stores have been charging for shelf space for decades.

dralley 4y ago

Lots of these companies need to be broken up. Facebook in particular given that their erroneous metrics literally put several media companies out of business. Not only did they charge for nonexistent engagement, but the BS engagement numbers they were providing were so enticing that it created a huge push towards expensive-to-create video content. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccurate-video-metrics-inflation-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccu...

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
thats some proper good old fashioned fraud

throwswaydollar 4y ago

Google Should be broken up first

Zetice 4y ago

What? Why? Volume of revenue is not a reason to break up a company.

oblio 4y ago
Conflict of interest. Making a platform and using it yourself naturally corrupts you, the incentives are too strong.
- Zetice 4y ago
  What interest is conflicting, exactly? Seems like interests would be pretty perfectly aligned to maximize revenue.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Yes, at the expwnse of their customers and the law. Thats what conflict of onterest means
    - Zetice 4y ago
      That doesn’t make sense, because if their costumer isn’t satisfied, they can use another online store.
freejazz 4y ago
It could be if it makes up the entire market...
- Zetice 4y ago
  Except it doesn't, not even remotely; there are dozens of other ways of buying things online, people just choose not to.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Except the issue isn't whether there are "dozens of other ways of buying things online, people just choose not to" but whether Amazon's market share is so large as to prohibit anyone from being able to compete with it.