5 ms·

Google is a monopoly and judges want to fix that. Outcomes are hard to predict

9 points by howard941 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dotcoma 2y ago
https://archive.is/2Ck65 https://archive.is/2Ck65
vessenes 2y ago
The Post article hits the important points here, I think. Namely * This is advocacy around innovation / what’s best for the economy from the justice department * It’s awfully hard to understand how you’d break up search, and would be unprecedented in anti-trust history (most trust busting has, quite literally been breaking up the mergers and acquisitions of interstate “trust” companies). A quick mental review of monopoly breakups makes me think that there’s no one size solution, even if you want to solve solely for the ‘common good’, however we define that. Standard Oil was worth more broken up than combined. And, the breakup almost certainly diluted America’s force extension internationally; that probably leaves three categories of people with really different views on if it “should have” been broken up. AT&T, mentioned in the article, stopped innovating post-breakup. But the silicon patents which were forced out in the 1950s created our modern world, including the device I’m writing this post from. And also it’s now free to make interstate calls, and you can actually, you know, own a handset (at least for an analog landline). Most monopolists will tell people that the profits from the monopoly allow better R&D and the scale of the business allows greater efficiencies. A statement can be true and self-serving. Or, occasionally true, and self-serving. On balance, I think we probably do lose something when we’re eyeballing any company that has pulled enough resources and power together to do things that aren’t immediately driving next quarter’s results — there is a power and benefit to accumulating capital, social and fiscal, and being able to deploy it. Anyway, the article speculates GOOG might have to stop paying for default search placement, and spin out its adtech business, both of which seem to me like they’d be net goods for the world. I don’t think those changes will radically change search marketplace dynamics, but they’d probably give at least a little bit of a leg up to new search firms (maybe?), and some mid-tier adtech company will no doubt be the beneficiary of a federally mandated contract to sell ads on the GOOG homepage, which will make someone very happy. Pandora’s box might just bite us here, though — it’s worth thinking “what if the ad market were more price efficient, allowing companies to, you know, buy MORE ads for the same dollars?” I’m not sure that’s a world I like more than “A monopoly extracts all spendable marketing money from online advertising businesses and uses it to fold proteins more quickly”

9 points by howard941 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dotcoma 2y ago

https://archive.is/2Ck65 https://archive.is/2Ck65

vessenes 2y ago

The Post article hits the important points here, I think. Namely * This is advocacy around innovation / what’s best for the economy from the justice department * It’s awfully hard to understand how you’d break up search, and would be unprecedented in anti-trust history (most trust busting has, quite literally been breaking up the mergers and acquisitions of interstate “trust” companies). A quick mental review of monopoly breakups makes me think that there’s no one size solution, even if you want to solve solely for the ‘common good’, however we define that. Standard Oil was worth more broken up than combined. And, the breakup almost certainly diluted America’s force extension internationally; that probably leaves three categories of people with really different views on if it “should have” been broken up. AT&T, mentioned in the article, stopped innovating post-breakup. But the silicon patents which were forced out in the 1950s created our modern world, including the device I’m writing this post from. And also it’s now free to make interstate calls, and you can actually, you know, own a handset (at least for an analog landline). Most monopolists will tell people that the profits from the monopoly allow better R&D and the scale of the business allows greater efficiencies. A statement can be true and self-serving. Or, occasionally true, and self-serving. On balance, I think we probably do lose something when we’re eyeballing any company that has pulled enough resources and power together to do things that aren’t immediately driving next quarter’s results — there is a power and benefit to accumulating capital, social and fiscal, and being able to deploy it. Anyway, the article speculates GOOG might have to stop paying for default search placement, and spin out its adtech business, both of which seem to me like they’d be net goods for the world. I don’t think those changes will radically change search marketplace dynamics, but they’d probably give at least a little bit of a leg up to new search firms (maybe?), and some mid-tier adtech company will no doubt be the beneficiary of a federally mandated contract to sell ads on the GOOG homepage, which will make someone very happy. Pandora’s box might just bite us here, though — it’s worth thinking “what if the ad market were more price efficient, allowing companies to, you know, buy MORE ads for the same dollars?” I’m not sure that’s a world I like more than “A monopoly extracts all spendable marketing money from online advertising businesses and uses it to fold proteins more quickly”