[HN Gopher] U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech... ___________________________________________________________________ U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown Author : throwawaysea Score : 333 points Date : 2021-04-16 09:23 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | more_corn wrote: | I'm pleased to see that Netflix has been kicked out of FAANG. | Makes sense since they are facing robust competition and no- | longer qualify for near monopoly status. I also support the | reordering of the words as presented in the article since GAAF is | way more appealing than leaving it as is with Netflix removed. | adreamingsoul wrote: | https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20210414/111451/HMKP... | 3327 wrote: | 10 years too late but better late than never... | the-dude wrote: | And Microsoft is not in this list. Who would have predicted that? | asah wrote: | IBM and Microsoft already had their anti-trust run-ins in the | 80s and 90s. | the-dude wrote: | So what happened? | ohashi wrote: | What sector does Microsoft dominate these days? They | actually are pretty good at competing. | | Major units at Microsoft: | | OS. This one is old, gone through anti trust stuff already. | There's Mac / Linux. | | Cloud. Azure is competing against AWS, GCP, everyone else. | | Gaming. Xbox has Sony and Nintendo. | | The strongest monopoly argument is still operating | system/office, but even that Google is eroding away at | office. The server market is dominated by *nix. | | Microsoft do have enormous stockpiles of cash and are | acquiring things and behaving similarly to the others. But | their major monopoly has already been tested and their | power is waning according to market share (https://en.wikip | edia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...). | zepto wrote: | > OS. This one is old, gone through anti trust stuff | already. There's Mac / Linux. | | Ok but by that argument, Apple wouldn't be considered | dominant either. | capableweb wrote: | You're forgetting a entire ecosystem: developers. | Microsoft owns NPM Inc, GitHub and Linkedin, all but | Linkedin focused on developers and both GitHub and NPM | owns their respective markets (GitHub for source code | management and NPM Inc for JavaScript distribution) | lotsofpulp wrote: | > But their major monopoly has already been tested and | their power is waning according to market share (https:// | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...). | | I don't see their power waning. Their control of Office | and Windows lets them bundle things like Teams and | OneDrive, which puts pressure on smaller companies like | Slack (sold to Salesforce) and Dropbox, who have a harder | time selling when MS is throwing in OneDrive for free if | you're already buying Windows/Office/Exchange/Azure/etc. | quickthrowman wrote: | Let's all shed a tear for the billionaire founders of | slack and dropbox, if it wasn't for Microsoft they'd have | 10 billion each instead of 1-2 billion. Poor Drew, poor | Stewart, the world has been cruel and unforgiving to | them. | | Have you considered that perhaps file storage and chat | rooms aren't innovative ideas that deserve massive multi- | billion dollar rewards? | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Have you considered that perhaps file storage and chat | rooms aren't innovative ideas that deserve massive multi- | billion dollar rewards? | | I made no claim regarding what ideas deserve what. Simply | that Microsoft is not losing power, by showing the kind | of effects it can have on other businesses. | the-dude wrote: | Well, so what anti-trust measures were taken then? | | And the server market is not dominated by *nix. Public | facing websites, yes. Corps are full of Windows Server. | Filled to the brim. | [deleted] | input_sh wrote: | For Microsoft, absolutely nothing. The majority of the case | was related to Windows coming with IE pre-installed, which | it still does. | | They've reached a settlement which was not even a slap on | the wrist. They've agreed to share some APIs and have a | couple of people in charge of ensuring compliance for some | years. Nine states + DC objected the settlement claiming | that it didn't go far enough, but the appeals court | dismissed their objections. | | In my view Microsoft antitrust is blown way out of | proportions and didn't achieve absolutely anything | concrete. One can claim that it discouraged similar | behaviour in the next decade or so, but that's about it. As | to why Microsoft is no longer considered a monopoly, I'm | more of an opinion that it's Microsoft's internal decisions | that did that, not anything antitrust-related. | mupuff1234 wrote: | I don't think having one in the past should be a "get out of | jail" free pass for future offenses. | capableweb wrote: | Probably Reuters editors who made it so, Microsoft is mentioned | plenty in the report itself (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU | /JU00/20210414/111451/HMKP...), I'm getting 74 hits when | searching for "Microsoft". | the-dude wrote: | Thanks for checking. | PretzelPirate wrote: | Most of those references are talking about how Microsoft | can't compete with its competitors who own the market (AWS, | chrome, Google search, etc...). | | There is some talk about Office though. | [deleted] | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Could you explain why you think that they should be? | akie wrote: | Break up Google. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | And Amazon. And Microsoft. And Apple. And Netflix. And every | other conglomerate... | nightwing wrote: | And USA and China, they are too big and a threat to everyone | else. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Imperialism and colonialism are the greatest threats to | humanity. The actors don't matter, intentions don't matter. | Actions matter. CCP and the US elite are the two worst | group of actors by number in the world. | odiroot wrote: | One is unlike the others. | | You're probably looking at Facebook, Oracle. Netflix is a | small fish. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | I'm open to discussion. My inclusion of Netflix is based | upon their ownership of content and distribution, last mile | excluded. Which reminds me to mention: Comcast, and co, as | well as the mobile carrier companies for inclusion. I'd | definitely agree that Oracle should face more scrutiny but | don't know enough about their business to say much besides | the fact that they're starting to look like Yahoo and IBM. | Facebook is a given. | etripe wrote: | How do you define "last mile"? I worked at ISPs that | housed Netflix storage boxes in their access layer, i.e. | the last site before the cable/fibre/copper pairs went to | customers' houses or mobile towers. | | So do you specifically mean "except the access layer" | (not accurate) or "except the last mile pairs" | (accurate)? I think the distinction matters when | considering monopolistic behaviour, because it determines | service quality (access speed, loading times, maximum | throughput...) | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | I'll defer to the experts on a definition here. I'm | trying to speak generally about the tax funded | infrastructure versus the actual work of connecting to | the backbone providers and providing satellite rack | space. The infrastructure costs virtually nothing to | maintain and is great for rent seeking monopolists to own | and neglect while running a city scale network connected | to the backbone requires constant maintenance and | upgrades to keep up with demand and the dynamic security | landscape. | | I guess my argument is Comcast shouldn't be they only | competition for coaxial internet if they can't offer an | internet only service, without discounts, for less than | their cheapest regular rate off contract package. | tolbish wrote: | Disney and Proctor & Gamble dare you to try. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Can I borrow 20 billion usd in unmarked cash loaded on 737s | for this? | capableweb wrote: | > potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating | the markets in which they also compete | | Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can | Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete | in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions | if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost | of doing business instead of deterrents. | | How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their | mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in | the past but suddenly it's different? | | How can Amazon be allowed to sell competing products in their own | marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace? They should | have been forced to divide their business long time ago. Of | course they are gonna use metrics from competitors that only they | have access to, in order to make their own product line get | better. | | Why is Google allowed to rank their own products in front of more | general results? Try searching for "Earth" on Google and see what | the top hit is. Is that really a fair ranking? We don't even | know, because no one knows how their algorithm is working, but | one thing is clear, Google products consistently rank higher than | anything else in the search engine. | | The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just | worried how it took so long to get here. | jjk166 wrote: | > Try searching for "Earth" on Google and see what the top hit | is. Is that really a fair ranking? We don't even know, because | no one knows how their algorithm is working, but one thing is | clear, Google products consistently rank higher than anything | else in the search engine. | | If you search "earth" on bing or duckduckgo, google earth is | the first result for both. | prepend wrote: | > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on | their mobile devices? We already went through this with | Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? | | Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not. Microsoft compelled | their hardware partners to not do business with competitors, | Apple is vertical regards to hardware. | | While I like protocols and interoperability, it's hard to | achieve that through antitrust laws because antitrust focuses | on consumer harm and without monopoly power that's hard to | show. I'm trying to think of any anti-trust for non-monopolies | or threat of monopoly and can't. | | Should my NAS have to include third party browsers just because | they have a browser? | osrec wrote: | The mobile phone market is an oligopoly, with each | participant pushing their own (sometimes terrible) agendas. | | Given that Apple is very deliberately resisting the adoption | of PWAs in order to protect their app store, I think it's | fair to say they're playing dirty. I mean, why are they | restricting other browsers from using their own web views?! | So that they can't implement annoying web push notifications | (which users can turn off anyway)?! That's a terrible excuse | to hold the web back, and it annoys the heck out of me. | Especially given the number of apps in the app store with a | bunch of security issues and equally annoying push | notifications. | mupuff1234 wrote: | Apple has about 60% share of mobile phones in the US. I'd say | it definitely should be considered a monopoly. | heavenlyblue wrote: | > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on | their mobile devices? | | They now allow it by the way. I don't know why. I am using | Firefox on iOS and it was supported for at least half a year | AFAIK. | | Your point still stands obviously. | kwyjobojoe wrote: | It's not really Firefox. They have to use the same engine as | the Apple browser. | capableweb wrote: | I should have been more clear. I'm not talking about the | "browser shell" (the UI for tabs, settings and so on) but | about the "rendering engine" which in the case of Firefox is | Gecko on PC, but since Apple has this arbitrary restriction, | is Webkit on iOS, which is the same engine everyone on iOS is | forced to use, no matter what. | | So yes, you're using Firefox, but you're still using the same | rendering engine for your browser, as any other browser on | iOS. Effectively limiting how powerful browsers can be on | iOS, as Apple has full control over Webkit and doesn't allow | anything else, literally anti-competitive behavior. | twobitshifter wrote: | On Desktop, how many rendering engines are there out there | today? 3? Most browser creators cannot afford to create | their own rendering engine, so we get Gecko, WebKit, or | Blink. | | With this in mind, when you're asking for alternative | rendering engines, you're really asking for Google to be | able to get their hooks into iOS. It would be nice if | Mozilla were free to develop their own engine but that's | not without downside and the most likely outcome is an iOS | dominated by Chrome and ad-tracking. | spideymans wrote: | > It would be nice if Mozilla were free to develop their | own engine but that's not without downside and the most | likely outcome is an iOS dominated by Chrome and ad- | tracking | | The impacts go beyond iOS. The reality is that Safari is | the only thing standing in the way of Google having IE- | style dominance of browser usage share. As of now, | Chromium has just under 80% usage share. If Chromium were | as dominant as iOS as it is on desktop, it's usage share | would likely exceed 90% | | Alternate engines are a fine idea in principle, but we | need to consider whether a Chromium monopoly on the web | is indeed an improvement from the status quo. | aww_dang wrote: | It would be nice if developers could debug Safari | specific issues without jumping through Apple imposed | hoops. | pojntfx wrote: | You're not using Firefox, you're using Safari with another | skin. Browser engines other than Apple-approved Safari/WebKit | are illegal on Apple platforms, effectively rendering it the | biggest blocker for the web right now (no PWAs, no push | notifications, no offline support, no support for free audio | codecs, extensions ... and the list goes on!) | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | I wouldn't bury your flag on this argument. Many users | don't care about that stuff, and Apple is winning the | privacy war through decisions like these. | capableweb wrote: | Doesn't matter what users care about, what matters is: | "Is Apple abusing their position in the market?" | | One could claim since Apple IS the iOS market, for them | to disallow competitors in certain app categories but not | others, they are indeed abusing their position as a | market owner, especially since they are the only one | allowed (by them) to develop a browser engine. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | That claim is moot if you can't prove articulable harm | that is in excess of the articulable benefits. | pojntfx wrote: | Well, the alternative to PWAs is publishing through | proprietary app stores - the users might not care to | much, but it's incredibly important for us as devs. Also, | one really can't trust a proprietary browser like Safari | with their personal data - while one might be able to | switch from Chrome due to FLOC on Android, Linux, Windows | etc., Safari would _force_ the change on their users, | with them being unable to switch to anything but the | "officially approved" browser. | mr_toad wrote: | > Well, the alternative to PWAs is publishing through | proprietary app stores | | This is what PWA really boils down to isn't it. It's not | about standards or openness it's about money. It's about | bypassing the App Store to do whatever the fuck you want. | [deleted] | spideymans wrote: | I'd hate to see the mobile landscape dominated by web | apps the way the desktop is. PWAs benefit developers, but | I've yet to see how they improve my UX as an end user | (when compared to native) | Silhouette wrote: | _Many users don 't care about that stuff_ | | Users don't object to a lot of things when either they | aren't aware of them or they believe they can't do | anything about them. That doesn't mean they aren't still | being harmed. | izacus wrote: | Users also "didn't care" about using Internet Explorer in | the Microsoft days and the browser market was STILL | severely handicapped with their monopolistic abuse. | | Same goes for Apple - with no ability to build an | alternative browser engine the market IS handicapped, | especially since Apple is abusing this restriction to | prevent web applications from competing with applications | from which they charge tax on every single monetary | transaction. | sbuk wrote: | The difference here of course is that Microsoft we're | shown to be threatening to withdraw OEMs licenses if they | provided Netscape preinstalled. They also threatened the | same if OEMs provided alternative OSS such as Linux. | | Apple on the other hand are preventing alternative | rendering engines. It's a very different situation. | That's not to say that it isn't problematic, but it not | as simple or as cut and dried as "but Microsoft and | IE!?!" | izacus wrote: | It's actually even simpler - Apple doesn't even open an | option to even have any kind of threats for withdrawing | licenses because they own everything and use hard DRM to | prevent any alternatives. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Call me stupid, but what exists on android that users on | iOS are begging for that only exists on android because | of the "freedom" of the platform. I'd like to take a | moment to say that android is just handicapped because I | can't run a different OS, or screw around in the OS and | change things to my whims. But no ones talking about | that, why not? | nmfisher wrote: | > Call me stupid, but what exists on android that users | on iOS are begging for that only exists on android | because of the "freedom" of the platform. | | Right now, Fortnite. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Epic is trying to strong arm their way into a position of | power against steam and apple so they increase their take | off the casino they've filled with children. Like under | 10 years old children, asking parents to buy them skins. | Skins and loot boxes are the worst thing to happen to | gaming and should be regulated. I, and many others are | firmly on Apple's side on this issue. If Epic made | revolutionary or just great games and didn't get children | addicted to digital heroin then I'd give their argument | more consideration. I don't want kids sideloading random | casino malware just because the kid at recess says it's | cool. | | Got a better example? | magicalist wrote: | > _Epic is trying to strong arm their way into a position | of power against steam and apple so they increase their | take off the casino they 've filled with children._ | | And Apple has the moral high ground wanting a cut of | proceeds because they make it easy for children to get to | the casino? Not a great analogy. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Apple has a better record on this than every other | company I can think of. So it is actually a good analogy. | Perhaps Epic didn't want to abide by these rules and used | the fees as a cover? | | https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/94213 | magicalist wrote: | > _Apple has a better record on this than every other | company I can think of._ | | Rent seeking on things you find immoral? | | > _Perhaps Epic didn 't want to abide by these rules and | used the fees as a cover?_ | | Is this something Apple has alleged? Because otherwise it | looks like you're speculating wildly to appeal to | emotion. "It's ok because maybe they're bad people." | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | That's not even an argument. It seems you're commenting | in bad faith trying to trap me in some linguistical | mistake. | | I did say perhaps which, last I checked, is a sign of a | rhetorical thought. | | Apple is not perfect, I don't like Apple, but epic is | selling crack to kids in my community. at least apple | keeps intermediaries between them and their child slaves. | I'm not taking sides here. All these huge companies are | deplorable and should never have been allowed to grow so | large. | saurik wrote: | Apple had no issue with Epic selling crack to your | kids... as long as they got their 30% cut: there are no | universally good actors here, and deciding your opinions | on right and wrong based not on what should have happened | but on your general opinions about the parties isn't how | any of this should ever work. | danShumway wrote: | Depending on your interests, that could be anything from: | Fortnite, Tasker[0], NewPipe, Ublock Origin[1], | Syncthing, xCloud and GeForce Now (until pretty | recently[2]), RetroArch, the Dolphin emulator (as of iOS | 14.4), and the most recent addition, NSFW Discord | servers. | | > android is just handicapped because I can't run a | different OS, or screw around in the OS and change things | to my whims | | You totally can. I've been running LineageOS for a while, | it's great. Improves my battery life, allows me to | quarantine apps, gives me more access to the firewall for | adblocking, and lets me get rid of cruft like the | launcher. You can even completely de-Google Android, or | install a community-maintained shim called MicroG that | enables some of the features without the tracking. | | The Android situation could be much better, this is why | some people are excited about Linux phones. But I don't | know a ton of Android users who are clambering to make it | _harder_ to use storefronts like F-Droid. I literally can | not imagine going to a phone platform that didn 't | support NewPipe, I watch too many videos on my device, | using the official Youtube apps would degrade the | experience way too much. | | I do think that the number of Android-exclusive things | you can do is much lower than it used to be. It used to | be pretty easy to make a compelling case that if you | cared about flexibility at all, you bought an Android | phone. I don't think that's the case anymore. But Apple | still hasn't really stopped being Apple, so while the | differences have become a lot less glaring, they also | haven't completely disappeared. And sure, you can get | some of this functionality back by jailbreaking, but in | comparison the vast majority of the stuff you do on | Android won't require root access, and all of the apps I | listed above can be installed on a stock Android device | without flashing or breaking anything at all. | | Whether or not iOS users actually care about that | stuff... :shrug: I suspect many of them don't. I'm not | going to try and make a giant case about whether your | average person on the street wants to be able to emulate | Gamecube games on their phone. But I also don't really | care; I'm a consumer and I want to be able to emulate | Gamecube games on my phone. I'm a consumer, and I want to | be able to install alternative Youtube front-ends that | increase my privacy. I want to be able to block ads in my | browser. | | At the moment, Android provides an alternative for me. | I'm very lucky that I never got locked into Apple's | ecosystem so I don't have to make a choice between losing | access to my credit card and being able to have a user- | respecting Youtube client. But if you are locked into | Apple's ecosystem, making a switch between phone | platforms can be really prohibitively expensive and time | consuming, so I sympathize with people who are in that | position. | | ---- | | [0]: To be fair IFTT is pretty good, but it just can't | offer the same level of functionality. | | [1]: I know someone will jump in on this, but adblocking | in Safari is just not comparable to Firefox. There is no | way to get what I would consider to be adequate | adblocking on the web in iOS. | | [2]: Microsoft/Nvidia have only been able to launch on | iOS using webapps, which given Safari's current | limitations are arguably a worse experience than having | native apps. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to | get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you | mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform | through alternative means. However, epic seems to be | dominating the discussion and they are a bad actor acting | in bad faith who peddle digital crack to children | fleecing their parents. If we can disambiguate between | useful apps, or apps that aren't designed to vacuum money | out of children and the flaws with apples model that'd be | great. | | To say that you can just install lineage is disingenuous. | I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs | at launch so my argument stands against these phone | manufacturers as much as they do against Apple. | | Simply, my perspective is that people are going too hard | on apple and not hard enough on Google. They both need to | be broken up and forced to allow more programs on the | products they sell. Epic is tainting the argument and | trying to disingenuously spin their self interests as a | benefit for consumers. | saurik wrote: | If it makes you feel any better, Epic also sued Google; | that lawsuit just doesn't get much press, as the | narrative surrounding Apple's store is so much easier to | attack due to how almost all Android devices technically | support sideloading (though as a second-class feature | which is actively crippled and discouraged by Google in | ways that are maybe anticompetitive). | danShumway wrote: | Epic is also currently in a lawsuit against Google over | Google threatening phone manufactures who include | alternative stores alongside Google Play. I'm not sure | where the argument is that Android is the ideal; Google | does restrict a lot of functionality to the Play store, | arguably illegally. They're just comparatively less | restrictive than Apple is. | | > I've never had an android phone that allowed custom | ROMs at launch | | Valid concern, but this is less a Google problem and more | a hardware problem. Google isn't doing anything to block | LineageOS, it just takes time to support the new | hardware. You'll see the same problem with consumer | laptops and Linux. This is why we have increasing | movement to try and get Open hardware/firmware. | Nevertheless, the situation with LineageOS is still | comparatively much better than it is on Apple hardware. | At least with LineageOS, you don't need to find a | jailbreak to get it working. | | Part of the reason Apple dominates these conversations is | because it's the most obvious, clear example of what | we're talking about -- not because the situation on | Android is ideal or because we wouldn't like the Android | situation to be better. Check out the discussions about | the Librem 5/Pinephone if you're interested in getting | involved in the effort to make hardware compatibility | better in general. | | > epic seems to be dominating the discussion | | It's not so much that everything revolves around | Fortnite, it's just that Epic is currently one of the | biggest forces in play surrounding antitrust. It's a bit | like how Google and Oracle dominated the conversation | around API Copyright -- not because Google was a saintly | company, but because they were currently arguing about it | in front of a judge, and that's a newsworthy event that | might have large effects on the industry. | | That being said, I'm also a little bit confused about why | you're voicing this objection here, because this article | doesn't mention Epic at all, and outside the comment | thread that you started, I don't really see anywhere else | in the comments where anyone has brought Epic up. | Fortnite was 1 out of 10 apps that I mentioned in a | comment thread that was originally talking about Apple's | refusal to allow alternative browsers like Firefox. So | while Epic is certainly getting a lot of coverage in | general, it's not like nothing else is being talked | about. I certainly didn't zero in on Epic in my comment | other than to list Fortnite as one of multiple examples | of apps some consumers might care about. | | On the note of "unequal coverage", it's also worth | mentioning that the legislative effort being covered in | this article _is_ targeting both Apple and Google and | would affect both companies equally. So I 'm not even | sure it's accurate for you to say that Google is getting | a free pass legally. The Judiciary Committee is certainly | not ignoring Google right now. | risyachka wrote: | Where do you draw a line between abusing and feature? | | If Apple didn't position itself as privacy-focused, then | not allowing other browsers would be clearly violation, | but if this is basically part of the product description | - and many people buy iPhones in the first place because | they don't want or case about other browsers - they want | safety - why should Apple be forced to do it? | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | >Where do you draw a line between abusing and feature? | | When there's articulable harm. | | Microsoft forcing the junk that was IE, and all their | other thuggish tactics, is articulable. | | The differences between chrome and safari are | insignificant enough that you'll bore most people when | trying to superficially explain how pretty much the only | people negatively effected are advertisers, who have been | avoiding their public reckoning over the straight up | horrific things they do in closed rooms. | | Maybe I'm wrong and there are consumers that harmed by | the lack of chrome or Firefox on ios, but that'd be news | to me. | Silhouette wrote: | _Maybe I 'm wrong and there are consumers that harmed by | the lack of chrome or Firefox on ios_ | | Well, developers of modern web apps can offer a | qualitatively better experience on those other platforms | in some ways than they can with iOS Safari. The offline | working features are one clear example. The use of open | (=> cheaper and sometimes better-performing) standards | for things like audio and video content is another. | | Unless you contend that the only reason any web developer | ever uses the features available in other browsers but | not iOS Safari is to abuse or exploit users, in other | words that no-one is (or would, if Apple supported them) | make any legitimate use of those features that would | improve the user's experience in some way, it is clear | that users are materially disadvantaged by the | limitations of iOS Safari, unless they have the choice to | use another browser that does offer those features | instead. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Microsoft didn't ban anything. They commited the mortal sin of | bundling notepad.exe and freezing out text editor innovation... | or something like that. | xxs wrote: | >Try searching for "Earth" on Google and see what the top hit | is. Is that really a fair ranking? | | As shocking as it is Microsoft's "bing" does the same... Some | more: duckduckgo.com does the same as well. (ok it uses | microsoft's stuff underneath) | | To be fair I am surprised with the results. | zffr wrote: | WebKit on iOS has special sandbox privileges not available to | other user frameworks. I think it allows it to spawn other | processes, and do special stuff to increase its performance and | decrease energy consumption. It seems like an engineering | challenge to expose these features to arbitrary 3rd party | frameworks in a way that doesn't allow these features to be | abused. | | Not sure of Apple's full motives, but I think this is at least | part of the reason other rendering engines are not supported. | traib wrote: | > WebKit on iOS has special sandbox privileges not available | to other user frameworks. | | Okay so WebKit cannot be used as is, but then why forbid | other alternatives [1]? Seems like a Catch-22. | | > It seems like an engineering challenge to expose these | features to arbitrary 3rd party frameworks in a way that | doesn't allow these features to be abused. | | How does literally every single other platform manage this? | AFAIK none of Android, Windows, the many Unix-like OSs, even | Apple's MacOs have such restrictions on browser apps. | | And I think it'd be unfair to characterize the users of those | other platforms as being "abused" by their browser apps. E.g. | Firefox seems pretty trustworthy. | | [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ | - "2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate | WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." | robbiemitchell wrote: | What prohibited browsers are you referring to? | traib wrote: | I was mainly referring to how every browser app on iOS is | forced have Safari underneath. The wiki page on Firefox | for iOS [1] mentions this in some detail - it cannot use | Gecko like it does on desktop and Android, it must use | WebKit instead. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS | fingerlocks wrote: | This is a technical detail most people don't care about. | You still get all the competing browsers with all their | specific features on iOS, regardless of the rendering | engine. | gorbypark wrote: | All non-Safari browsers on iOS use the Safari engine | underneath, which doesn't currently support WebRTC. It's | a pretty huge blocker for a lot of sites (video | conferencing, etc) to have to throw up a "Please use | Safari" banner for iOS users using anything other than | Safari. | heavyset_go wrote: | It also doesn't support Web APIs that Chrome and Firefox | have supported for 8+ years now. | cma wrote: | I believe due to webkit no browsers are allowed to do | full screen with multitouch. It is possible this only | affects Safari and Chrome and isn't a webkit limitation, | I haven't tested Firefox. | zepto wrote: | > How does literally every single other platform manage | this? AFAIK none of Android, Windows, the many Unix-like | OSs, even Apple's MacOs have such restrictions on browser | apps. | | They don't. All of those platforms are less secure than | iOS. | traib wrote: | > All of those platforms are less secure than iOS. | | Do you have a source for this statement, specifically in | relation to browsers? | | Let's consider Android. I wouldn't automatically assume | that using Safari on iOS is more (or less) secure than | using Chrome or Firefox on Android - they are all | provided by well known tech companies with years of | expertise building browsers and a focus on security. | zepto wrote: | Android is definitely less secure than iOS, you can | easily verify this by googling. | | Controlling the execution environment is part of iOS's | defense in depth strategy. Focussing on browsers alone is | a red herring. You have to look at the whole system. | | It's true that Google or Mozilla may be able to produce | an equivalent level of security in a browser engine, but | that's a false comparison, since alternative browsers are | not limited to just these companies. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | iOS still runs main parts of its text rendering in kernel | space. It is by definition less secure than almost any | other operating system. | zepto wrote: | And yet somehow isn't as plagued by botnets and banking | Trojans etc. | jonny_eh wrote: | > Android is definitely less secure than iOS, you can | easily verify this by googling. | | You can also verify that the world is run by lizard | people by googling. | heavyset_go wrote: | And yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits | because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2]. | | [1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_f | laws/ | | [2] http://zerodium.com/program.html | [deleted] | zepto wrote: | That's a function of unsold _inventory_ and the | usefulness of exploits and nothing to do with the number | of possible exploits. | impulser_ wrote: | Bing.com has Google Earth first on the list as well. | | I think you are overreacting to how many searches give Google | products as the first result. | | The only products that do rank high are literally the most | popular products. What do you think they should rig the results | against themselves? Why would that help people? | notyourwork wrote: | > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on | their mobile devices? We already went through this with | Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? | | How can Microsoft control what games you play on Xbox or how | can Nintendo control what games you play on switch? | | Why are grocery stores allowed to sell private brand products | that compete? | | I'm worried we don't quite have a good grip on how to solve | this problem. | kortilla wrote: | > The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm | just worried how it took so long to get here. | | Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons | batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious | argument when it's not. | | > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed | to compete in it? | | They don't. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. | You need to be more specific. | | > How can Amazon be allowed to sell competing products in their | own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace? | | Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, | Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs | have existed. | | > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on | their mobile devices? We already went through this with | Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? | | The same reason you can't put software you want on a | Xbox/PlayStation/Switch. | | > Why is Google allowed to rank their own products in front of | more general results? | | Because it's their algorithm to do with what they want. If they | want to erode public trust by using it to advertise their | products, that's their choice. Other things they adjust the | algorithm to do: filter malware, filter porn (by default), | filter unreliable sites, etc. You're going to have a really | hard time defining what's "fair" for a black box algorithm to | do. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "The same reason you can't put software you want on a | Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." | | Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. | | Furstly, which law or court case actually establishes that | those business practices are right and proper? | | Secondly, which law or court case establishes that | smartphones can be equated with game consoles? There is a | huge body of law that governs mobile connectivity, spectrum, | emergency services, etc. that has no bearing on a gaming | device. | ben_w wrote: | I believe the principal is that everything which is not | banned is legal. This probably has a funky Latin | translation, but I don't know as I'm not a lawyer. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | John has gone to the pub, a random person gave him $5,000 | and said he can keep half if he transfers the rest to | Bob. Later it turned out it was drug money. | | The question in court will not be "is money laundering | illegal" or "is taking money from random people illegal". | The question in court will be "does this amount to money | laundering, or is john just an idiot and it was not his | responsibility to know". | | Similarly, here we are discussing not "is market | manipulation illegal", but "does the activity carried out | by Apple amount to market manipulation" | | Comparing Apple to game consoles is basically: "stop | selling drugs" - "John does it too, and he is not in | jail, so it's fine." | | That argument only works if John has been to court and a | judge has ruled that he is innocent. That's case law - it | established that previously, in similar circumstances, a | court has rules that this was / wasn't a crime. | dredmorbius wrote: | _Mens rea._ | kabdib wrote: | >>"The same reason you can't put software you want on a | Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." | | > Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. | | Letting anyone put any software they wanted on an | Xbox/Playstation/Switch would diminish the platform's value | by eroding security and trust. | | For instance, compare online cheating ecosystems between | those three platforms and the PC (where you _can_ run any | software you want). The PC is a much, much worse platform | in terms of cheaters, scammers and account hijacks. | | I have no problem with people running whatever they want on | the hardware they purchase, but extending that to "I should | also be allowed to be trusted when I do this" does not | logically follow. In other words, feel free to reflash your | Xbox, but don't expect to be able to play games or connect | to your Xbox Live account from that hardware after your | jailbreak. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | That is totally irrelevant. | | This about not allowing competing browsers as a blanket | policy. If this was trully about security, Apple can do | as many security audits as they want. They can even | charge for them. They can require affidavit, security | officers, insurance policy, indemnity, etc. | | But they dont because this is not about security, it is | about controling the market | bun_at_work wrote: | Controlling what market? The browser market? | | A large part of Apple's brand, at this point, is security | from snooping, personal privacy, etc etc. It makes sense | to control the browser on the iPhone for privacy than it | does to seek to eliminate browser competitors. Safari | isn't a crucial part of their revenue, devices with the | security promise are. Furthermore, the browser seems to | be the key space where use privacy is violated from, via | cookies and other tracking software. If Apple want's to | say they have a pro-privacy device, controlling the | browser makes sense for that goal. | | It just doesn't make business sense for Apple to be | attempting to control the browser market. Maybe you mean | they are controlling some other market through the | browser, though. | kabdib wrote: | Not allowing arbitrary code on a platform is hardly an | irrelevant point. It's a fundamental architectural | decision that makes deep statements about what a platform | can do, and who has permission to do it. These decisions | define both business models AND features such as user | security and trustworthiness. | | For instance, to be competitive in terms of performance, | a browser almost certainly needs to JIT Javascript. If a | platform prevents apps from generating code and enabling | the 'X' bit in PTEs then this isn't going to work. Even | if the platform provides JIT services (e.g., pass in an | AST, out pops a few pages of callable code) there is | still a ton of added risk. | | Designing and maintaining the security of a platform is a | ton of work and a big investment (assuming it's done | well). Security teams are already quite busy, and adding | whole app categories that are suddenly able to break | previously established design decisions is not easy -- | "just do a security audit on a handful of titles" is a | phrase that we've all heard, many times, and it sends | shivers down our spines. Having seen it tried, and been | on some projects that did it, I think it's impossible to | do well even at a small scale. | | Been there, done that, seen projects canceled because PMs | couldn't internalize the nature of the risk to the | platform. | ben_w wrote: | > You're going to have a really hard time defining what's | "fair" for a black box algorithm to do. | | To which the two biggest counter-arguments are: | | 1. "So don't allow black box algorithms" | | 2. "This is why the search engine company should be separate | from the company which owns all the other products" | Nasrudith wrote: | So when are we banning human judgements? They are the | ultimate black box. | Tarsul wrote: | at least humans are held accountable. | kortilla wrote: | People use Google because the algorithm is a black box that | is constantly updated to keep away black hat SEO crap. An | open web page ranking algorithm is useless in an | adversarial environment. There is no current signal that | can't be trivially gained that doesn't effectively require | mass user surveillance (to see "what's really popular"). | | > 2. "This is why the search engine company should be | separate from the company which owns all the other | products" | | This doesn't solve the problem. They can still alter top | listings to push things for "preferred partners and | truths". | neolog wrote: | > An open web page ranking algorithm is useless in an | adversarial environment. | | Anybody with Search experience confirm or deny this | claim? | random314 wrote: | I have experience, and this is trivially true. Search | engines can only look at proxies for relevance , as | General AI hasn't been achieved yet. Proxies can always | be gamed. | telmo wrote: | > black hat SEO crap | | Pretty redundant if you ask me: black hat, SEO and crap. | echelon wrote: | > > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers | on their mobile devices? We already went through this with | Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? | | > The same reason you can't put software you want on a | Xbox/PlayStation/Switch. | | The iPhone is a general purpose computer, not a gaming toy. | You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, spreadsheets, | GPS navigation, photos, video - your entire life, all one one | device. | | For half of Americans, this is the only computer they own. | | For half of Americans, Apple controls what software you can | use, and it extorts a 30% cut. | | That's mafia behavior. | | Gamers can choose between Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, PC, | Steam, Epic, and dozens of other platforms. There's lots of | choice, and this is just one industry with a very narrow | impact on consumers' lives. | | Mobile computer (aka smartphone) users get to choose between | Apple and Android for the entirety of everything they do, and | both of these companies try to butt into everything. They | even want to control banking and payments. | | The App Stores aren't given to us benevolently out of the | good will of a loving Apple and Google. They're means of | exerting control and extracting profit in a monopolistic | fashion. They both need to die. | ben_w wrote: | > You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, | spreadsheets, GPS navigation | | > For half of Americans, Apple controls what software you | can use, and it extorts a 30% cut. | | 30% (or even 15%) of $0 is $0. | | Apple gets nothing from me for my finance apps, my email | client, my chat apps, my spreadsheet apps, or my GPS apps, | _because they are free_. | | I can't comment about dating apps as I'm not using any. | Complaining that Apple charges for gaming, however, is | weird given you choose to reject them as gaming devices. | andiareso wrote: | The argument was "general purpose computer" which would | include games. It's not exclusively a gaming device | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | > > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be | allowed to compete in it? | | > They don't. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from | ads. | | Yes, but they own _search_ ads and a large percentage of web | ads (though the non-siloed web is becoming less and less | relevant each year), and they do everything in their power to | put people into their ad funnel. | | They control 50% of the mobile OS, 70%+ of the browser | monoculture, and nearly 100% of search. They can order sites | according to which ones use AdSense or AMP, neuter ad | blocking (especially of AdSense), and collect behavior across | the web even when website owners don't want it. | | They're fucking up an entire set of technologies to further | their goals. | | That's not monopolistic. That's horrific. I don't think we | even have a term to describe this yet, it's so bad. | | We're all getting _Big Teched_. | darawk wrote: | > Yes, but they own search ads and a large percentage of | web ads (though the non-siloed web is becoming less and | less relevant each year), and they do everything in their | power to put people into their ad funnel. | | You can call any company as a monopoly if you define its | market narrowly enough. The hard question is making a good | argument for your choice of market. Google is absolutely a | monopoly in search advertising. But is search advertising | the right market to consider? Google would argue the | appropriate market is advertising as a whole, where they | are clearly not a monopoly. | | The ultimate question at hand is whether and to what extent | consumers are being harmed by anti-competitive practices. I | think in Google's case that's a hard case to make. It might | be a bit easier for e.g. Facebook or Amazon, though. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > How can Amazon be allowed to sell competing products in their | own marketplace, when they own the actual marketplace? They | should have been forced to divide their busin | | Depends on how you define "marketplace". Costco/Walmart/Best | Buy/Target/Home Depot/Lowe's/grocery stores all sell their own | brands next to competing brands in their stores. | | Is their one store _the_ marketplace? It takes considerably | more effort to go to a different store than going to a | different website. | capableweb wrote: | It's not just whatever marketplace, anti-monopoly legislation | focuses on markets where the players own a significant share | of the full market. In the case of Amazon, it seems like they | have above 52% of the e-commerce market in the US in 2019 | (https://www.statista.com/statistics/955796/global-amazon- | e-c...) so probably it's even higher now. | | When one player now has over half the market, you need to | carefully watch what they are doing in order for them not to | start exploiting their position. This is why it's different | between Amazon and Home Depot, they hold different amount of | the market, so even if Home Depot wanted to exploit their | position, they probably couldn't. Amazon with their | marketshare, can do so much easier. | | Then there is the issue of specifically Amazon ranking their | own products above others in their search results, even if | others have better reviews, more purchases, more page views | and so on. Then we start getting into "abusing their market | position" territory, and this is what is getting investigated | now. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Yes, so the issue is not just selling your own products in | your own marketplace. | | > This is why it's different between Amazon and Home Depot, | they hold different amount of the market, so even if Home | Depot wanted to exploit their position, they probably | couldn't. | | I would say Home Depot has far more control of their | markets than Amazon does. Pick any smaller metro, and the | only consumer building materials store around is Home Depot | or Lowes. The two basically split up all the markets, and | if there's not enough business to sustain both, then there | will be just one. But no other store will be able to | compete. | | If you're a manufacturer and you can't convince Home Depot | or Lowes to stock your item in their store, then you're not | going to reach 90% of people via in store attention (for | home improvement stuff). | | Almost all big box store brands have whittled down to two | viable options, or even one in the case of Best Buy. | Although, I think that might be the natural state of things | given how low profit margins are for retail (low single | digit percentages). | capableweb wrote: | > Yes, so the issue is not just selling your own products | in your own marketplace. | | Of course not, the final issue is companies becoming | monopolies and companies abusing their market positions, | that is what we want to prevent, in order to foster | innovation and open markets. | | > I would say Home Depot has far more control of their | markets than Amazon does | | Maybe you're right, I know nothing about what's going on | on the ground of the US. So if Home Depot do have more | control of their market than what Amazon has of the | e-commerce market (more than 50%), then they should also | be under watch to see what "strategies" they employ to | get more profits. | | Just because the House is now investigating technology | companies doesn't mean that hopefully whatever | legislation comes out of this, cannot be applied to other | industries. | atdrummond wrote: | I'm from a rural county in Illinois and our largest city | has Lowes, HD, Menards, Ace, Farm and Home Supply and a | number of specialty stores. There's considerably more | competition in Home Depot's field. | [deleted] | lotsofpulp wrote: | I forgot about Ace, but searching on Maps shows there's | still a few around! I wonder if they are franchised. I | only recall seeing HD and Lowes on the coasts though. | sgerenser wrote: | Most Ace Hardware stores are franchises. There's 5000 of | them in the US. | ericmay wrote: | How is it more competition? You'll visit at most what 2 | of those stores looking for a product? | | I can use plugins in a web browser to effectively visit | 100 stores to shop for the best price on an item. Amazon | is just another vendor. | | -edit- | | To add to this. If you want to compare to Amazon then you | have to look at the market share and revenue of those | stores too. Not simply their existence. It doesn't matter | if an ACE hardware is in the area if it is 3% of the | market. | capableweb wrote: | > I can use plugins in a web browser to effectively visit | 100 stores to shop for the best price on an item. Amazon | is just another vendor. | | Sure you could, but is that how most users use the web? | According to Statista (2019 - | https://www.statista.com/statistics/955796/global-amazon- | e-c...) [same link I put before], over 50% of the market | is just Amazon, even though it's soooo easy to chose | another one. | | Since they now have a grip of the majority of the market, | they should be having lots of eyes on them, as they can | easily abuse their position, which most of us don't want | to them to do. | zepto wrote: | > Sure you could, but is that how most users use the web? | | It's not clear what the point is here. | | > According to Statista (2019 - | https://www.statista.com/statistics/955796/global-amazon- | e-c...) [same link I put before], over 50% of the market | is just Amazon, even though it's soooo easy to chose | another one. | | Could it be that people choose Amazon because despite its | faults it provides the best service? | | I dislike Amazon and try to avoid them wherever possible, | but in practice I probably use them 50% of the time, | because in those instances there isn't a better | alternative. | jjk166 wrote: | It doesn't matter what percentage of people choose an | option so long as competing options are readily | available. The fact is Amazon can't abuse it's position | and raise prices dramatically or severely reduce service | or otherwise take advantage of a captive market because | the market is not captive. | ericmay wrote: | I can't view the link without paying unless you are | simply showing that Amazon has 13% of the global | e-commerce market and 50%~ of the U.S. market. | | To answer your question - it doesn't matter. We don't | determine monopolies simply because of market share. If | we did, why aren't we filing another anti-trust | investigation against Microsoft and Windows? | | The point anyway is that people have no switching cost. | Amazon faces stiff competition not just in America but | globally. I remain unconvinced that they have a monopoly | on e-commerce. Sure they may have take some monopolistic | _actions_ which could be addressed, but that's not enough | for me to demonstrate that they are a monopoly. | | Frankly, I think Amazon has really been struggling. Prime | sucks. 2-day shipping is slipping not just in service but | as new competitors enter the market. It's a fierce | competition. | | Google and Facebook on the other hand _are_ monopolies. | That's a no-brainer. | | Apple I'm not sure how they've even been in the | discussion. | simion314 wrote: | >Apple I'm not sure how they've even been in the | discussion | | Remember that Apple and Google pulled a legal app from | their stores, regular Apple users (like 50% of US) can't | install stuff on their device without Apple parental | approval and the "make it a website argument also fails | because Apple is does not let you install a better | browser". | | 50% still affects a lot of people, though Apple fanboys | will attempt to say is not a big enough number (remember | you could install other browsers and whatever application | you wanted on Windows without a Microsoft approval or | tax). | ericmay wrote: | Depends on how you look at it. Are we comparing operating | systems? Then we have a duopoly and should regulated | Android as well. Are we comparing phone manufacturers? | Well, there's a ton of them, Apple just competes and does | the best. | | > Apple and Google pulled a legal app from their stores | | I can't sell anything I want at Wal-Mart. Doesn't PayPal | not allow porn sites to do business? I don't see how this | is different. | | > Windows without a Microsoft approval or tax | | So is it market share or what? What exactly is the | monopoly? Microsoft doesn't allow me to play PlayStation | games on Xbox. Most computers are sold with Windows | operating systems. I don't know what the monopoly is | supposed to be with Apple. | simion314 wrote: | - consoles, I am against their locking too , there is | less complains about them so far since people can | jailbreak them and their mostly media/enterteiment | devices, but again I don't agree with the locks on | consoles either | | - monopoly, duopoly is not that important, you can have 3 | big actors in a market that are cooperating against the | users for their own interests, so the market share is | irrelevant and the abuse/damage is relevant. Is Apple not | allowing say 10 million users to install some app because | of political reasons or 50 million users to install a | game because some other policy reason? This people were | affected , for example Joe did not know when he bought | his iPhone that Apple can block his favorite game , or | some app , is friend Bob has Android and he side loaded | it, Joe is pissed now and feels tricked because on the | box it was not printed that Apple can abuse his trust | like this. | katbyte wrote: | What app? | simion314 wrote: | I don't want to name it, because the US guys will start | again a big debate why X event is worse then Y event, why | this P app is worse then F app, and since X > Y and P< F | then Apple is right to ban the legal app P to protect the | citizens. | | That is a very visible case, but there were other smaller | cases , where smaller applications were blocked because | they had a link and that link was going to a page and on | that page a developer would accept donations and Apple | wanted a but from that. | | Then you have apps blocked on totalitarian states, an | entire nation is affected because they can't side load | applications. | jjk166 wrote: | > "make it a website argument also fails because Apple is | does not let you install a better browser". | | I'm currently on chrome on my iphone. Maybe you can't | install arbitrary browsers, but you can certainly install | different ones. And there's always jailbreaking. | simion314 wrote: | Chrome is a bit more then a skin and you know it and I am | sure you can't expect to trick competent people with this | argument. If iOS would implement PWA then some native | applications could be implemented as as PWA and Apple | would lose money(I don't believe the security or privacy | excuse either, a PWA will always have less access then a | native app) | jjk166 wrote: | PWA are supported by iOS | simion314 wrote: | Is this "Safari the new IE" just a meme | https://www.safari-is-the-new-ie.com | | I will have to let someone else to continue this since I | don't own a iOS device and at work we don't target | mobile. | | Though I had to fix soem iOS issue sin a third party | plugin, it was using some WebGl and it was broken on iOS, | so the plugin was using a software(slow and ugly thing) | for iOS but then Apple change things so tablets pretend | they are desktops and broke the plugin(so from my limited | experience iOS browsers are inferior ). | heavyset_go wrote: | I can't tell if you're joking or not. Apple refuses to | implement Web APIs that make PWAs usable, the same Web | APIs that Google, Chrome, Firefox, etc have all | implemented 8+ years ago. | clairity wrote: | the percentage share of a market is an indicator but not | the defining characteristic of monopoly practices, rather | it's control. principally that manifests as pricing power | and leverage over competitors. a monopolist can have a 20% | share and still exert anti-competitive power over that | market. | 8note wrote: | How much of the home tools and amateur construction market | does the hone despot have? I'd image they have more than 50 | as well | skystarman wrote: | The standard for antitrust enforcement for decades has been | when the action of a company harms consumers. | | How does Amazon harm consumers? I mean precisely, how? | | Amazon is one of the most highly rated companies in the US | by its customers. Its NPS score is 69 and 70 is considered | "world class". | | I can get almost anything online shipped to my house the | SAME DAY. If Amazon sends you the wrong item they'll let | you keep the wrong one and immediately ship you a new one! | | How is taking action against Amazon going to help | consumers? Seems to me that just ends up being a giant win | for Walmart and target who offer worse service and often | worse prices! | | So how are consumers being hurt? | 0xB31B1B wrote: | "The standard for decades"... the article is about a new | laws being proposed because the current laws don't | properly account for the harms monopoly actors cause. | Nasrudith wrote: | Isn't that itself very suspicious that they are going all | Calvinball and changing the rules which long stood out of | the blue? | | Now they say it is a monopoly is a problem after Walmart | managed to become the biggest employer in several states | and literally becoming the only option in many areas? Now | they cite vague unspecified harms while long ignoring | concrete ones and claim the ones with no ability to | exclude from the market are too far? That just screams | "pretext". | zepto wrote: | What harms? | Renaud wrote: | >How does Amazon harm consumers? I mean precisely, how? | | but burying alternatives, they basically drive smaller | product competitors away, reducing their sales and their | ability to grow and innovate. | | Amazon has been blatantly copying products that other | brand sold, and made them cheaper. Great for consumers if | the only thing you care about it price. | | Because the game is getting rigged and Amazon products | will always be more prominent, no-one can compete with | Amazon on these products. | | You end up with less competition and less choice. Amazon | can just undercut you, push you down in their listings | and get the lion's share of any product type they find | lucrative. | | Certainly not all that bad but where do you imagine this | is going if no-one else is able to compete with Amazon? | | Amazon is already king and has power of life and death on | countless businesses that rely on it being an impartial | party so they have a chance to sell their ware. | insert_coin wrote: | The same things were said against Walmart, the exact same | arguments word for word. | | And yet we saw the rise of independent stores, | gentrification, Whole Foods, the rise of e-commerce, the | rise of etsy, amazon, ali, ebay, the rise of the Apple | Store, the rise of... | | And then we saw an explosion of "third party" brands. | Millions and millions of alternatives flooded the market | despite Walmart "undercutting everyone of their | suppliers". From soda to nailclippers, to phone cases to | chairs, to spoons, to...everything. Despite all the fear | mongering, today there is not a single product category | where only one brand exists, there is not a single | product category where only the Walmart brand exists. | | Competition cannot be stopped, the business cycle cannot | be stopped. Birth, growth, death, repeat. Amazon is huge | today because Walmart was so huge before it; people | actively went out of their way to avoid it just out of | spite. | | Competition cannot be stopped, except _by_ regulations. | Give amazon by law a pen to play in and you are making | sure they 'll never let anyone else in. | | Things never stay as they are, and retail has never been | so competitive. Amazon won't be top dog forever, just as | Sears wasn't, just as Walmart wasn't. Just as the mighty | GE wasn't, or the even mightier East India Co. wasn't. | pydry wrote: | >The same things were said against Walmart, the exact | same arguments word for word. | | And? | | >And yet we saw the rise of independent stores, | gentrification, Whole Foods, the rise of e-commerce, the | rise of etsy, amazon, ali, ebay, the rise of the Apple | Store | | So... Walmart was outcompeted by the Apple Store? | baq wrote: | One example: Amazon doesn't seem to care about fraudulent | sellers and fake paid-for reviews on its platform. | zikzak wrote: | They seem to have a lot of sellers (relatively speaking) | that do "triangle fraud". So they sell the part, order it | from another site using stolen card, ship to original | customer. They could be doing a lot to combat this but | basically say "call the police" if they don't just ignore | well sourced reports. Moving to more "fulfilled by | Amazon" helps but that's never going to cover of all the | inventory so fraudsters will always have a home there. | zepto wrote: | That's an example of poor service. Not them harming | consumers. Do you know whether Walmart.com or Aliexpress | are any better? | baq wrote: | actively looking the other way in presence of fraud on | your platform is only 'poor service'? goalposts moved to | the moon. | zepto wrote: | Are they "actively looking the other way", or is it just | hard to detect when there is so much money involved? | baq wrote: | i don't know, do you? | zepto wrote: | So you just made up a bullshit accusation to discredit | Amazon based on no evidence at all, and then claimed I | was moving the goalposts? | baq wrote: | i know nothing happened in the review and fraud for | years, i don't know if it's too expensive to fix - your | bullshit against mine. (also, too expensive for amazon? | what?) | | as to your goalposts, poor service is literally bad for | customers/consumers, so i don't even know what to say | except that you're quite likely incapable of letting go | of your beliefs, because logic can't reconcile the | dissonance. | [deleted] | jcrites wrote: | Amazon cares substantially about stopping these things. | | As is the case when you are fighting against other | humans, who are crafty, financially-motivated, and are | willing to break the law, and may be operating from | different jurisdictions where attempting to get the DA to | prosecute them or filing a lawsuit against them is | ineffective, it's a very difficult battle to fight. | | As an example I'd be surprised if Amazon could get China | to prosecute a business operating from their country | that's selling counterfeits on Amazon. Additionally, it's | hard for Amazon to know if a product sold in its | marketplace is counterfeit: there's no global API or | method to look up if a product is authentic. The best you | can do is rely on the trust of the seller. If you want to | mitigate your risk, buy products that are only sold by | Amazon itself, or name-brand 3rd party sellers who have | high reputation (like Belkin for electronics; Apple even | lists Belkin products that integrate with theirs on | Apple's online store: | https://www.apple.com/shop/accessories/all/power- | cables?fh=4... ). | | People occasionally experience counterfeits, but once | reported the seller is typically caught and banned. (But | if they're a corporation in another country, and willing | to break the law and ToS, they'll reincorporate under | another name and try to do it again. Stopping this is | difficult.) | | Reviews are also a difficult problem to tackle. Amazon | decided long ago to allow people to leave reviews without | purchases, though reviews from people who purchased the | item get an extra "verified purchase" badge. But that | doesn't stop the abusers: they "buy" the item under | various accounts they've created themselves, give the | product a good review, and then return it to their own | inventory. Small sellers might get a bunch of friends & | family to do this, which would be hard to detect as ToS- | violating conspiracy; larger sellers will use | sophisticated schemes to create many accounts and | identities to do the same thing (or simply pay a network | of actual people to do it, such as by asking on | Craigslist and similar places), to boost reviews of their | own products, or if they're willing to burn cash, buy and | negatively-review products of competitors. When done from | many names/addresses/credit cards/IP addresses, it | requires sophisticated intelligence analysis to detect | and stop. | | Please consider the attackers that Amazon is actually up | against when trying to stop these abusive behaviors | before concluding that they don't care. They have | multiple hundreds of people working on the problems. They | are simply hard problems to solve, because Amazon is | fighting against other smart, sophisticated humans who | gain financially from their abuse. | | Amazon could shut down its marketplace, which accounts | for 50% or more of all sales on the store, and only sell | products it acquires directly from manufacturers, but | that would destroy many businesses who have built | themselves up using Amazon as a primary venue to sell | their product. Furthermore, it would disallow people who | have legitimately acquired the product another way from | reselling it--for example, say I buy a pallet of some | authentic product from a retail store that's going out of | business; shouldn't I be able to resell those products? | The law says that I can. If Amazon has a marketplace, | shouldn't I be able to resell there? These could be Nike | shoes or any name-brand products. | | (Sophisticated manufacturers who want to protect their | supply chains from 3P reselling will repurchase inventory | from retailers who are going out of business; or | alternatively provide it to retailers on consignment | --meaning Nike owns all the shoes being sold in a | retailer's store up until the point where they're sold to | a consumer; so upon going out of business the retailer is | expected to return the inventory.) | | Now you run into tricky situations. I buy a pair of Nike | shoes brand new from a retail store and never use them. I | decide I don't like their look after all. Should I be | able to sell my shoes on Amazon as new at a lower price | than Nike does? Yes, you should and you can (though | you're unlikely to be selected as the default offer as a | new untrusted seller with a single product; unless Nike | is one of the companies with brand protection for what | may be offered as "new"; though I believe you could still | sell as "like new"--I am not an expert on this space). | | Some brands were counterfeited so frequently that Amazon | has started to offer the ability to limit who can sell | trademark-protected items that are only sold by their | manufacturers with its Brand Registry: | https://brandservices.amazon.com/ | | I believe the sellers who are accused of fraud or | counterfeiting will be asked by Amazon to provide proof | of authenticity, such as purchase orders from the | manufacturer or other proof of authentic origin, but | allowing people to open accounts and sell means they | start with a presumption of trust -- creating the | possibility that some people will have bad experiences | with counterfeiters until they're caught and shut down. | | Imagine you're the Amazon engineer responsible for | figuring out how to stop people willing to break the law | and all of your policies to make profit; then put | yourself in an attacker's shoes and imagine all the | things you could do to circumvent the best ideas you can | come up with for stopping fraudulent reviews and | counterfeits. (Assume for the sake of argument that your | company is committed to allowing third-parties to sell on | the store.) | heavyset_go wrote: | > _Amazon cares substantially about stopping these | things._ | | And yet Amazon doesn't even let their customers choose | the correct reason for returns when they receive | counterfeit items. Instead of being able to choose "This | item is a counterfeit" or "I believe this item is a | counterfeit", the customer must choose between reasons | for their return that aren't entirely accurate, like | "Inaccurate website description" or "Item defective or | doesn't work". | | You'd think that a company that claims it is throwing | vast amounts of resources at stopping counterfeiting on | their platform would at least try to collect data on the | counterfeits their customers receive. | kelnos wrote: | I don't buy it. This is why companies have (sometimes | government-mandated) know-your-customer policies. | | Allowing anyone to sign up and do business on your | platform with minimal friction is great for growing your | platform, but it's terrible for growing a _trustworthy_ | platform. | | The things you bring up are the result of an allow-all | policy with a denylist. Deny-all with an allowlist would | fix the problem. But of course that costs a lot more to | implement, and as long as people still buy stuff on | Amazon despite the hassle of dealing with counterfeits, | Amazon will continue to fail to fix the problem. | Unklejoe wrote: | They could start by preventing listings from being | renamed. | | I have encountered several items with good reviews, but | when you read the reviews, they're all talking about a | completely different item. | jcrites wrote: | Yeah, I've personally run into that myself. It's not that | the listings are being renamed, it's typically that the | seller is listing their product as a "variation" of the | other product has has good reviews. | | What you're describing is another kind of abuse called | Listing Abuse, specifically Variation Abuse. If you | encounter Listing Abuse, use the link on the page "Report | Incorrect Product Information" [1] and say that the | product is experiencing Listing/Variation Abuse, and give | a couple examples of reviews that are clearly for | unrelated products. It will be investigated, taken | down/unlinked from those reviews, and the seller will be | punished as appropriate. | | ("Variations" are products that have different SKUs but | are all linked together and share reviews, such as the | same product that comes in different colors or patterns | or sizes. For example, the Speedo Swim Cap has 20+ color | and pattern variations: https://www.amazon.com/Speedo- | Silicone-Solid-Swim-Black/dp/B... . Each is actually a | distinct product SKU, but since they're all functionally | the same, just with different colors or patterns, they | have one page and share reviews.) | | The fundamental problem that makes Listing Abuse hard to | stop is that, if you allow people to sell on your store, | that means you allow them to enter their own product | information -- which you don't have any way to verify. | There's no World Authority for Product Information that | you can check against. And not all sellers use | Fulfillment-by-Amazon where Amazon holds the inventory; | plenty of sellers ship the product themselves, meaning | that Amazon never has an opportunity to see or inspect | the product. Even if Amazon had a policy requiring new | sellers to ship a product to Amazon to inspect, that | wouldn't stop malicious sellers from shipping something | different to customers. | | Sellers have a lot of power to describe the products | they're selling that they legitimately need. | Unfortunately this means they have the power to list | their products as variations of other highly-rated | products to falsely make them look like they have a lot | of good reviews. This is another one of those problems | that is difficult to solve, because you need to give | sellers access to describe their products to support | legitimate usage patterns, like adding a new variation. | (Like Speedo deciding to offer yet another color or | pattern beyond their existing 20+). | | All that being said, I agree that this should really be | one of the easier types of fraud to stop, and don't | understand why it's taking so long for the company to | shut it down effectively. I think they need to build some | machine learning systems that compares product | information to review content when new variations are | created, to flag likely variation abuse for human review. | I also don't understand why variations are not required | to all be shown on a single page (which would stop the | abuse); there are probably legitimate use-cases that | require it. | | [1] Here's a link highlighting where it is on the page | for the Speedo Swim Cap: https://www.amazon.com/Speedo- | Silicone-Solid-Swim-Black/dp/B.... - or just find it by | text searching for "Report incorrect". | foobiter wrote: | NPS is gamed so hard with dark patterns that it's | completely unreliable as a metric... I worked at a sales | driven company and the lengths they went to push the | score up despite actual customer feelings was borderline | fraud. | IgorPartola wrote: | https://gizmodo.com/amazon-reportedly-pressures-small- | busine... | | Amazon Reportedly Pressures Small Businesses with | Retaliation if They Don't Hand Over User Data | skystarman wrote: | Again, how does this harm consumers? | Bjartr wrote: | What are some examples of behavior you would accept as | being actual harm to consumers? | dredmorbius wrote: | Under the Bork standard, to which skystarman is alluding, | rising price is the only concern. "Consumer harm" | doctrine. | | This was invented from whole cloth by Robert Bork, | Richard Posner, and Aaron Director, at the University of | Chicago, as part of a decades-long project and | organisation to redraft US antitrust policy. It was | devastatingly effective. | | It also has little if any basis in the legislative | rationale of original antitrust legislation in the US. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox | Bjartr wrote: | Thanks for clarifying! That "consumer harm" is a term of | art here, and not a catch-all for all downsides the | consumer experiences is exactly the kind of confusion I | was hoping to clear up. | Bjartr wrote: | I apologize to whoever I apparently offended by being | curious. | baq wrote: | it's in the title? | arcticfox wrote: | As one example, I used to sell textbooks on Amazon. Our | account would be suspended at ANY report of potential | issues with a book, despite a 98%+ positive feedback | rating. It was a constant battle against the platform, | despite doing everything under the sun to ensure our | customers had a perfect experience. | | Meanwhile, Amazon Warehouse was slinging hot garbage and | getting constant negative feedbacks (80% positive range) | and they never got suspended. _Amazon Warehouse_ even | cancelled a massive number of their own negative | feedbacks by blaming _Amazon Prime_ for things that had | nothing to do with shipping. | | We were undercutting Amazon on price for a long time, but | in the end we threw in the towel because it was just an | impossible marketplace to participate in. Interestingly | there was another textbook seller that had a similar | experience that got their testimony read to Bezos by | Congress. | | https://www.theverge.com/21349440/amazon-marketplace- | third-p... | fakedang wrote: | Smaller businesses get eaten up, resulting in a bigger | Amazon with greater monopoly powers, that harms consumers | with shittier goods and less choice. | pydry wrote: | Amazon squashes competitors and raises prices or reduces | quality/costs safe in the knowledge that consumers have | few alternatives. | | It's weird asking "how does killing off the competition | hurt consumers?" when literally all economic growth | depends upon it. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | By destroying competing businesses and reducing consumer | choice, isnt it obvious? | Nasrudith wrote: | But just offering better service for a lower price | destroys competiting businesses. There is a reason | competitor harm wasn't the standard for anti-trust | despite it being about competition between companies. | blihp wrote: | Price and selection. You may love what Amazon offers | today. I think they're moderately terrible, even compared | to the Amazon of 10 years ago, and I have fewer | alternative marketplaces to choose from and products in | those marketplaces. Try finding the _exact_ thing | /seller/manufacturer you're looking for... for some | things I find it damn near impossible due to how they now | consolidate listings. I'm also pretty sure that the | prices aren't as good as they would in a more competitive | environment but can't be certain as Amazon has wiped out | much of it. Competition is a key mechanism that allows | markets to self regulate. | | The vast majority of companies are incapable of self | regulating because it is contrary to their primary | mission of 'maximizing shareholder value'. This generally | just means eliminate your competition and then maximizing | profit. In the absence of competitive markets, the | government often needs to step in at some point. | pottertheotter wrote: | There's many that argue that the current standard for | antitrust enforcement does not consider enough or the | right factors. | Robotbeat wrote: | Yeah, I agree with your point. | | I'd rather see legislation that focused on both improving | worker wage and making it easier for new companies to | enter the marketplace and compete with Amazon rather than | punishing Amazon for having a store brand or whatever | (store brands very often seem to be a good thing for | consumers, even if companies don't like being undercut). | ohazi wrote: | It's possible for a monopolist to have a great product | that allows people to do amazing things that were never | previously possible and still be harming the consumer. | | Microsoft had the leading desktop operating system in the | 90s that allowed millions of ordinary people to start | using computers for the first time, yet their browser | bundling was considered problematic. | | Bell telephone allowed you to talk to people across town | and across the country in real time. People love talking | to their far away friends and relatives! But they were | simultaneously providing this futuristic service _and_ | harming consumers with their anti-competitive practices | and monopoly pricing. | | It's possible for Amazon to both be providing a great | service to you and me _and_ be harming consumers with | priority placement of Basics products and even harming | competitors by abusing their access to product metrics in | deciding what Basics products to make. | abduhl wrote: | Let's be clear about something misunderstood about | Microsoft: Microsoft won that litigation in America, | which is the jurisdiction we're talking about. Framing | Microsoft's browser bundling as being "considered" | problematic is the same as framing someone who was | acquitted as being "considered" a criminal. The Microsoft | approach remains an acceptable practice in law and is one | of the principle points of the Apple v. Epic fight. | edgyquant wrote: | >Microsoft won that litigation in America | | No they didn't? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_ | Cor... | | > the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions | constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of | the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of | Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the | district court's judgments. | rovolo wrote: | To expand on this: they basically won the right to bundle | on appeal, but they were found to have abused their | market power in support of IE. | | First Trial: | | > On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of | Microsoft as its remedy.[19] According to that judgment, | Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate | units, one to produce the operating system, and one to | produce other software components. | | Appeal: | | > On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with | Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement | required Microsoft to share its application programming | interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel | of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's | systems, records, and source code for five years in order | to ensure compliance.[29] However, the DOJ did not | require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent | Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the | future. | dragonwriter wrote: | > they basically won the right to bundle on appeal, | | If, by "appeal" you mean "settlement negotiated with the | new, Microsoft-friendly Administration", that is correct. | | That's not what "appeal" usually means in a legal | context. | abduhl wrote: | If you're convicted of murder because the government | dismissed black jurors due to their racial prejudices in | order to assure the jury was all white and then the | conviction is overturned on appeal and the prosecutor | declined to reprosecute, are you guilty of murder? No. | You aren't. | | More closely: if you take a plea bargain and plead guilty | to breaking and entering instead of murder, are you | guilty of murder? What if you only agreed to the plea | bargain because you didn't want to spend the millions of | dollars to litigate again? This latter hypothetical is | the reality of corporate prosecution in America: | companies will settle just to avoid tainting their | reputation and spending the cash to win on the merits. | That doesn't mean that they're guilty. | [deleted] | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Most jurisdictions do not consider American Plea bargains | a proper legal process. | | You are suppose to be tried in a public process by an | impartial judge and a jury of peers, not making a deal | behind closed doors with a prosecutor looking to advance | his career. | skystarman wrote: | Microsoft and Bell were successfully sued using existing | antitrust law because they WERE harming consumers. | | So again, how is Amazon hurting consumers? | kube-system wrote: | They are using their power to force competitors out of | the market. That's what antitrust is about anyway -- it's | not really about how happy customers are. "We're the | best!" is easy to say when you've decimated any potential | rivals. | insert_coin wrote: | > They are using their power to force competitors out of | the market. | | Everyone does this, it is called _competition_. | kube-system wrote: | In fact, many would say that monopolistic powers are the | end result of capitalism. Thus the reason for antitrust | regs to act as a reset. | insert_coin wrote: | And they would be wrong. The fact that everyone does it | is the reason no one truly succeeds, not in the long run. | A MAD strategy not only with two players but with | millions. | | That is why every free market monopoly that has ever | existed has passed and we are not living under the thumb | of a single all encompassing mega-corporation and the | only pseudo-monopolies possible are the ones guaranteed | by law in regulations. | dontblink wrote: | It is in the US though? | kube-system wrote: | Laws that prohibit anticompetitive practices do just as | the name implies -- they prohibit companies from acting | in a way that inhibits competition with their competitors | in the market. | | The impact on consumers is often used as a justification | and evidence of that, but it's not usually a requirement. | It is assumed that the act of being anticompetitive | itself is harmful to consumers as it limits their | options. | [deleted] | spacemanmatt wrote: | Microsoft's dirty tricks with DOS, Windows, and other | would-be commodity software are legend. They should have | gotten parted out into OS, Desktop suite, and probably | several other fragments a long time ago. That stuff was a | nightmare for me as a consumer. | rincebrain wrote: | Should they have, though? | | I agree they should have been penalized (ideally more | harshly than they were) for their legendary | anticompetitive behavior, I'm just no longer as sure that | partitioning the company out into distinct divisions | would have been a net gain for the consumer as I used to | be, especially against the specific behaviors they were | accused of. | | How, for example, would breaking up Microsoft into | distinct divisions prevent, say, the OS division from | enforcing the same anticompetitive requirements on | companies licensing the OS? | | I also think consumer perception of what's reasonable in | an OS has shifted since then. I don't think any of us | would argue now, for example, that shipping a desktop OS | with no browser installed by default would be a | reasonable choice. (Likewise probably a media player.) | | Should it be impossible to uninstall? Maybe not, but | there's a not-unreasonable argument to be made for | preventing someone from winding up in a situation where | they have no browser installed at all and can't look up | how to fix it. (Having no media player installed is | obviously less catastrophic.) | tablespoon wrote: | > How, for example, would breaking up Microsoft into | distinct divisions prevent, say, the OS division from | enforcing the same anticompetitive requirements on | companies licensing the OS? | | That kind of breakup wouldn't have solved that anti- | competitive problem, but it would have solved others | (e.g. the Office Team being able to use undocumented OS | APIs to get an edge on competitors). | | Though, personally I kinda think a breakup of a tech | monopoly should be more extreme, for instance by breaking | it up by division _and_ splitting some of those divisions | further into competitors (e.g. split the OS division in | two, each with their own Windows fork to sell, and all | the Windows trademarks go to some independent | interoperability consortium). | rincebrain wrote: | > it would have solved others (e.g. the Office Team being | able to use undocumented OS APIs to get an edge on | competitors). | | I mean, it might have prevented learning about and using | new undocumented APIs going forward, but it would be in | none of the newly-broken-up companies' interests to break | the existing usage. | | > splitting some of those divisions further into | competitors | | Even that I'm skeptical of - first, because you'd need | enforcement to prevent them from simply merging again | after a while (glares at Ma Bell breakup companies | reforming into a few huge companies which usually | deliberately avoid competing in markets), and second, I'm | not convinced that deliberately fragmenting Windows into | 2 distinct codebases is beneficial for consumers? | | Even assuming you could avoid one of the two competitors | simply winning the vast majority of the marketshare after | one round of OS upgrades, you'd likely end up with | mutually incompatible API surfaces, thus breaking one of | the main reasons people like Windows - compatibility. | | (I still claim, though, that given two initially equal | products and equal resources, that one will probably | relatively quickly eat the other's lunch. Look at what's | happened almost every time a large open source project | has had a high-profile fork - look at egcs and gcc, or | OpenWRT and LEDE, or libav and ffmpeg.) | lenkite wrote: | Amazon regularly carries out malpractice by flouting | federal regulations as described at | https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special- | report/amazon-i... | skystarman wrote: | Us antitrust law has no jurisdiction over what Amazon | does in India... | bko wrote: | > It's not just whatever marketplace, anti-monopoly | legislation focuses on markets where the players own a | significant share of the full market. | | It depends on what you call the marketplace. Look at the | broader "retail" sector | | > The eCommerce giant [Amazon] accounted for 3.2 percent of | total consumer spending in Q2 (spanning all categories, | including retail) and 9 percent of total retail spending... | When it comes to consumer spending, Walmart accounts for | 3.4 percent overall and 10.2 percent for retail. That's up | from 9.6 percent in Q1 2020. | | Walmart has a considerable share. | | > so even if Home Depot wanted to exploit their position, | they probably couldn't | | Do you really think Amazon has more pricing power than | Walmart? I'm much more likely to switch online retailers | than my brick and mortar store. It's a lot easier to | compare prices and switch. | | https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2020/amazon-and- | walmarts-... | vlovich123 wrote: | If you define the marketplace as the US economy, Amazon | looks like a tiny blip. If you define it as in-person | retail Amazon is non-existent. | | The analogy I would use is that e-commerce retail is | smart phones in 2008 (maybe a bit later) and the broader | retail market includes landlines and feature phones. Even | today landlines exist and feature phones are sold. The | growth trajectory for e-commerce won't change and big box | retail won't encounter a meaningful resurgence. Amazon is | the second biggest retailer alone as compared with | Walmart which primarily makes money on big box store and | has a retail presence in name only (if you take just | their online sales it's not meaningful competition). The | concern is that the reason Amazon holds such dominance in | e-commerce is because it's really leveraging cross-market | dominance. AWS subsidizes their marketplace to be extra | competitive, their data on retail has them introducing | first-party products that compete with suppliers selling | through their platform by focusing on high-margin items. | | The better question is whether or not this kind of | behavior needs regulation, or needs regulation yet. I'd | argue yes having read the story from the diaper.com | founder and Bezos' laughable diversion. | | As for ease of switching, I think e-commerce can't be | directly compared as the driving user behaviors are | different. I could argue it's easier with a big box store | because I could just drive to a different one, use my CC | and move on whereas in e-commerce I have yet another | account to manage, I have to make sure I'm not getting | scammed, etc. | nradov wrote: | We can't regulate competition in online retail over | concerns about what might happen in the future based on | an analogy to a completely different market. | bko wrote: | > The growth trajectory for e-commerce won't change and | big box retail won't encounter a meaningful resurgence. | | I wouldn't be so sure about that. I like the convenience | of online shopping, but I also like convenience of | immediately taking possession and curation. I'm price | sensitive of course. I buy most of my electronics from | Best Buy. Their prices are almost always the same as | Amazon and if they're not its trivial to ask for a price | match, which they always do. | | Obviously Best Buy or other retailers can't stock | everything, but they can stock a lot of the things I want | to buy in Electronics. And they leverage Amazon search, | ratings and price. They're just more convenient. They | have been doing very well over the last decade. | | I think people extrapolate too much of the current | trends. Physical retail has been around longer than | Amazon and will likely be around when Amazon is gone. | bagacrap wrote: | Search result positioning is equivalent to physical | placement in brick and mortars. Are you going to start | legislating where exactly Whole Foods or Target can place | its house-brand items? Should Starbucks be forced to | reorder its menu items in descending order of popularity? | | There's basically nothing on Amazon that can't be purchased | elsewhere online, so to say that the answers to the above | questions can change because lots of people choose to buy | from Amazon doesn't ring of "protecting the consumer". If | anything, the fact that so many people choose to shop there | makes me think the consumers have spoken and they like the | deal they're getting. | ABCLAW wrote: | >Costco/Walmart/Best Buy/Target/Home Depot/Lowe's/grocery | stores all sell their own brands next to competing brands in | their stores. | | These are almost all 'control brands'; similar or identical | products from the same suppliers, but they don't have | marketing spend allocated to them. The delta in sales between | the control brands and the 'brand-name' ones allows you to | calculate goodwill. | yoz-y wrote: | Not in my experience. Except for very well known brands | like Coca Cola and Mars, the store-brand products are | always front and center in all shelves, and all in-store | marketing (flyers, catalogs, promotions) is for the store | branded products. This is for Carrefour, Franprix and | Monoprix, not sure how it is in the US. | bagacrap wrote: | Target creates knock offs (Up+Up brand) for almost all | the household products they sell. They're placed directly | next to the item from the known brand, such as | Neutrogena. I would say if anything, the known brand item | is more front and center, but it's impossible to ignore | the adjacent facsimile that's 2/3 the price. | lotsofpulp wrote: | FYI, "knock offs" has the same meaning as counterfeit. | Target sells "generics" under their Up+Up brands. | basch wrote: | knockoff means imitation https://www.merriam- | webster.com/dictionary/knockoff https://www.collinsdictio | nary.com/dictionary/english/knockof... | lotsofpulp wrote: | I've never seen it used in a context other than trying to | pass an item off as something else. I would be surprised | to hear someone refer to a generic version of something | as a knockoff. | darksaints wrote: | All of those companies buy their inventory and take on the | full risk of potentially not selling it. They're retailers, | not marketplaces. | gruez wrote: | Not sure about the other stores, but that's not always true | for walmart, which has at least some goods on consignment. | | https://blog.softwareag.com/in-future-retailers-may-be- | missi... | darksaints wrote: | Consignment is still a stocking risk. They are on the | hook for holding costs. | | Amazon doesn't do shit with marketplace inventory. | Sellers are either stocking it themselves, or they are | explicitly paying amazon to hold it in their inventory. | | The difference matters because retail stores always have | an incentive to sell the things they stock. Even pure | consignment stores will refuse to consign items that they | don't think they can sell. Amazon has zero incentive to | sell marketplace merchant stock, as they bear zero cost | to not sell it. So anytime they start to compete against | their merchants, they can effectively hide competitors | listings in a back room out of sight and never have to | deal with the consequences of doing so. | com2kid wrote: | For an increasing number of product lines, Walgreens is | selling only their house brand. | | Last time I needed one, I was unable to buy an effective | bandage wrap in person, I had to order online. My local | Walgreens only had their own house brand "self stick" type | that doesn't really stick at all. | | Went to buy some wrist braces, again, only their house brand. | Many styles of wrist braces exist, they sold one type, the | type I didn't want. | | For some house brands, such as Costco, they provide a huge | competitive force in the marketplace. An example is Costco | Diapers, which are rated really well, and basically establish | a price at which other "name brands" have to complete. There | is a possibility that they are creating a downwards pressure | on the price of diapers overall. (Or that they are colluding | to ensure prices don't fall too far, huh, never thought of | that angle before!) | | My local grocery store's brand is generally untrustworthy. I | hate it when they are the only option for buying something. | The 3 times I have tried their yogurt coated pretzels I have | gotten an upset stomach, and I normally have an iron stomach | that allows me to eat street food around the world with | aplomb. | | Funny enough their house brand "sweetened flavored sparking | water" is really my preferred brand, so they get it right | some of the time. | | But from one perspective, isn't this argument hypocritical of | us? If I go to a baker, I kinda expect everything in the | bakery to be "store brand", and in fact many bakeries been | scandalized for not selling their own goods! Heck if I go to | my local farmer's market I expect what the farmer sells what | they grew, and again if they are just reselling produce, | social media scandal! | | This entire idea of stores being a "marketplace" for multiple | brands is only a recent aberration. | | So maybe what are seeing is just things are just slowly | returning to a world where everything is "store branded". | vxNsr wrote: | > _This entire idea of stores being a "marketplace" for | multiple brands is only a recent aberration._ | | Replace marketplace with platform, anyone who calls | themselves a platform and competes on the "kill all | competitors" level should be regulated as common | carrier/public space. | | There are numerous ways to identify platforms vs | marketplaces and not all of them are related to total | market penetration. But I think the legislation should look | in that direction, give the FTC the power to declare a | company a platform in its space and then allow it to | regulate that company in the same way utilities are | regulated but obv updated for the internet age. | | I think the biggest hinderance to this sorta thing is that | all law makers are increasingly biased and refuse to | acknowledge their favor. They pretend instead that they are | in fact impartial and any appearance to the contrary is | simply necessary due to the importance of the issue at | hand, or the extremists involved ("I'm really a centrist, | they're just nazis, so I appear to be far left" and vice | versa). | starfallg wrote: | Antitrust legislation usually kick in when there is a | dominant participant in the market that is abusing their | position. So shops having their own-brand products competing | with products from vendors is fine until the company in | question has an effective hold on that market. | squarefoot wrote: | > It takes considerably more effort to go to a different | store than going to a different website. | | Not if the different website becomes hard to find because | first pages of Google's search results are sold to better | bidders. | basch wrote: | googles front page for any term is already "what we think | is best." it's their discretion, their opinion, they have | no obligation to be fair. | | if somebody paid for rank, the FTC requires them to | disclose the sponsorship. | laurent92 wrote: | Should Costco/Walmart be allowed to sell products along | competing ones in their own marketplace? No! Of course! | | I'd like to see how well they would perform on Target/Best | Buy shelves, they probably wouldn't sell at all. Therefore | the only origin for their success is an abuse of marketplace | ownership, and it has distorted the market, and therefore has | harmed consumers by simply reducing quality brand's ability | to scale, by imposing higher shelf costs for the same brand | exposure, and therefore fewer sales. | | Although it's not a _monopoly_ -- and another law should be | drafted against competing on a marketplace you own. | basch wrote: | >I'd like to see how well they would perform on Target/Best | Buy shelves | | I don't understand that comparison at all. Do you know what | percent of the Target floorspace is Target owned brands? Or | Ikea? | | Imagine being a store that sells its own product, AND wants | to augment their own product with some third party | products. Like a sweatshirt company that also throws | sunglasses on a rack. They arent really "making" either of | these things. In one case they are throwing some branding | over a product and having having it manufactured by | contract. The other they buy generic wholesale. Because | they want to sell both branded and unbranded goods they | shouldnt exist? That would shut down nearly every retail | business in the country overnight. | | Where has the idea of a neutral marketplace ever been | realized in brick and mortar America? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Should Costco/Walmart be able to sell their own brands on | their own website? Should retailers who sell other brands | be able to sell their own brand at all? | | > and therefore has harmed consumers by simply reducing | quality brand's ability to scale, by imposing higher shelf | costs for the same brand exposure, and therefore fewer | sales. | | How come brand name items cost more on the brand's website | compared to Walmart's brands on Walmart's website? There is | no shelf cost online. | laurent92 wrote: | Isn't it because resellers like Walmart always require | lower prices than what the brand sells publicly, | otherwise brands would always undercut all their | resellers? It is the case with electronics, I don't know | for food. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I doubt it, that would be ascribing immense sway to | Walmart over other enormous companies like Procter and | Gamble, Unilever, etc. | | What is more likely is this is a simple example of price | discrimination or price segmentation. Theoretically, you | can earn the most money by selling each item at the | maximum price the buyer is willing to pay. But if the | buyers all have varying levels of income or willingness | to pay, how do you scale this? Obviously, you can't | barter with every single person for every $5 bottle of | lotion. | | What you can do is create various brands, and maybe | differentiate the products slightly, or maybe not. | Similar to binning with silicon chips where the chips | with higher probabilities of performing better and longer | get sold for higher. | | So Walmart can go to Johnson and Johnson and say hey, | you're selling Lubriderm for $5, make me some lotion | that's similar or lower in quality (but still acceptable | to Walmart), and we'll sell that for $4. Now, J&J get to | sell their $5 lotion to people willing to pay $5, and a | cheaper line to people wanting to pay less, but they | don't have to lose the people paying $5. | | And they do this in many, many layers. P&G, Unilever, | J&J, and others all have countless brands they use to hit | various price points. And the products may be the same, | or may be marginally less in quality. And maybe it | behooves some people to pay more for the extra assurance | of quality. | kelnos wrote: | I feel like this ship sailed many many decades (centuries?) | ago. Pretty much any store aside from small mom-and-pops | will have their own brand of commodity items that they sell | alongside third-party brands. Complaints about those seem | to be pretty rare. | | I think the difference is that the playing field is more | level. Most stores that I've seen won't make it harder to | buy the name-brand version or easier to buy the store-brand | version (aside from the store brand often being cheaper). | They tend not to really market the store brand, so the | name-brand version generally has advertising behind it and | is often seen as superior, even when it really isn't. The | two versions sit side-by-side on the shelves without | preferential placement to either. | | Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon gives | preferential treatment in search results to stuff that | gives them a better margin, regardless of whether or not | it's a better product or a better value. | | I don't necessarily agree that they wouldn't sell outside | their own store, though. I generally look at the store | brand as the usually-cheaper "generic brand". For example, | if I'm looking for cold medicine, I'll never buy NyQuil, | because the equivalent store brand is more or less the | exact same thing and is cheaper. But I don't really care | _which_ store brand. If the CVS-branded version somehow | ended up in a Walgreens, I 'd still buy it. (Obviously CVS | would never sell the Walgreens version, but... yeah.) | | (Speaking of mom-and-pops, I actually find it annoying when | I need cold medicine, walk into my local corner store, and | only find NyQuil rather than the generic | CVS/Walgreens/whatever store brand. The corner store | usually sells NyQuil at an even higher price than the chain | pharmacy would, and there's no alternative.) | mindslight wrote: | > _It takes considerably more effort to go to a different | store than going to a different website._ | | That seems like it must be true - Going to Lowe's instead of | Home Depot takes getting to know a different store layout, | and likely at least an extra half hour if you still have to | go to HD. | | But evidently, by the way people talk about ordering | everything from Amazon (despite its numerous problems) and | look at you like you have three heads if you talk about going | to even say just _Target_.com, there seems to be some | counterintuitive hurdle for switching websites that 's | actually worse than for physical stores. Perhaps because web | widgets are so un-affordanced that figuring out a new one can | actually be hard, or that the majority of orders are | reorders, or the smaller stakes dopamine feedback from | getting what you need while sitting down, or the dark forest | feeling makes people extremely conservative. Whatever it is, | it exists. | | Of course there are also plenty of people who have no problem | switching between online stores at the drop of a hat. I'd | posit that these people have a model of buying based on | manufacturers, viewing the web stores as mere means to some | ends, and understand credit card chargeback policies. For | example I buy a decent amount of stuff from Zoro (whose | descriptions can be lacking), and so I often end up | referencing manufacturers' catalogs directly. Which are | fantastically informative and easy to read (single PDF, well- | specified comparison tables, no middle clicking dozens of | search results, no page load lag, no flipping between tabs to | spot a minute difference hidden by web chaff, no | surveillance, etc), but I'm certainly paying a fixed effort | overhead to get to that point. | | Whatever the case for such stickiness is, I think one of the | best tech reforms possible would be to mandate open APIs. As | Amazon (et al) are _stores_ , then their business is selling | specific products for specific prices. This data should be | openly available such that it can be retrievable by _every_ | user agent (no CAPTCHA harassment), and ideally, orders | placed through the same system. This would enable price | competition as well as _UI_ competition, rather than the two | being bundled as they are now. | zepto wrote: | > But evidently, by the way people talk about ordering | everything from Amazon (despite its numerous problems) and | look at you like you have three heads if you talk about | going to even say just Target.com, there seems to be some | counterintuitive hurdle for switching websites that's | actually worse than for physical stores. | | I think there is truth to this since I personally for a | long time would go to Amazon for everything. Over time I | have shifted to using them less and less. | | However I think it's just a matter of consumer maturity. | Apple Pay has done a lot to make it easier for me to buy | from 3rd party websites. There is a lot of money to be made | in services to help the rest of the web be more competitive | to Amazon. We are just at a certain stage in the cycle. | | That's what concerns me about getting the government | involved. These 'monopolies' have arisen very quickly - on | the order of a decade. Things can change in the marketplace | just as fast. | mindslight wrote: | We can look at general principles and see problematic | couplings and incentives. In fact we could do this ten | years ago before the problem grew so large, but there was | no political will. | | For example, by bundling product sales and web UI, what | Amazon (et al) are doing is making it so that customers | have to use Amazon's software to shop Amazon (and | conversely they're prevented from using software of their | own choice). Of course Amazon's software hasn't been | designed to benefit the user, but has been designed to | benefit Amazon - eg "dark patterns". Hence my call to | unbundle the two by mandating API access. A public API is | straightforwardly in Amazon's capabilities (it's | literally just making a version of their website in a | predictable format without all the extra crap), and would | tie right into your "services to help the rest of the web | be more competitive to Amazon". | | Facebook et al are doing the same thing with regards to | Metcalfe's law, and a similar remedy would be | appropriate. | | Not that I think any specific legislation will be | anything resembling sensible reforms. Hell, we'll be | lucky if it doesn't end up being a _boon_ for big tech. | zepto wrote: | > Amazon (et al) are doing is making it so that customers | have to use Amazon's software to shop Amazon | | This is true of almost all online stores and nobody is | proposing legislation against it, so it's not at all | clear what you are saying. | | Government mandating APIs seems like a fatally | destructive move against software freedom forever. | mindslight wrote: | I'm proposing it and saying it would be a better remedy | than whatever regulatory-capture-ripe "reform" they're | proposing is. | | I actually _like_ house brands of stuff, when compared to | the thousands of gensym brands. The problem isn 't | marketplace companies privileging their own brands - it's | with singular companies owning the marketplace to begin | with. | | Humans are creatures of habit, and the way to make it so | we aren't in the habit of just buying everything from | $Amazon is to replace that with the habit of buying | things through non-affiliated aggregators. I'd rather | have one familiar UI showing me (Amazon Basics, Zoro | Select, HDX, etc), than multiple UIs each showing me the | same "competing" gensym brands. | zepto wrote: | Why not just outlaw dark patterns in general as deceptive | practices? | | All this focus on fixing particular companies or | government mandating software architecture seems like it | just gets the government more and more invovled while not | doing anything to prevent the actual abuses. | mindslight wrote: | It's impossible to formally define dark patterns, | especially when trying to except traditional dark | patterns (recurring sales, coupons, strategically placed | roasting chickens, etc). | | And so any attempt to do that will necessarily "get the | government more and more involved". Either through some | administrative body that decides whether a certain thing | is a "dark pattern", or through judicial remedies ("Here | is your 57 cent media credit because Amazon lied about | shipping cutoff times. They admit no wrongdoing but | promise to never do it again"). | | Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software | architecture". It's merely just a different form of the | website that has a predictable structure. Amazon could | even choose whatever structure they want, as long as it | is documented and versioned. | | Both approaches aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm not | arguing against the former. I just don't hold out hope | for it to create meaningful reform - centralized bodies | are just as likely to bless abusive practices. | zepto wrote: | > Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software | architecture". It's merely just _a different form of the | website that has a predictable structure_. | | That is software architecture. | mindslight wrote: | That's like calling a bike shed "civil engineering". I | don't know what point you're making with the term | "software architecture" other than trying to make it | sound burdensome. | zepto wrote: | My point is that once you mandate that, then forever all | stores must be architected around providing this web API, | based on technology assumptions frozen in law. | | Building a P2P or distributed store, not based on a | central website, just as an example, would be illegal. | | This is just one example of how the future would be | encumbered forever based on a 90's software architecture | becoming enshrined in law. | | The web as it is today is not some endpoint in software | evolution. | | A Government mandated API is literally the government | regulating software architecture. | SAI_Peregrinus wrote: | How can grocery stores be allowed to own food brands when | they're also marketplaces! How can Aldi be allowed to sell | competing products in their own marketplace, when they own the | actual marketplace? | umvi wrote: | Walmart sells walmart brand generic stuff don't they? | [deleted] | Black101 wrote: | Another problem with Google is their popups... I.E.: If you are | not using Chrome, and visit Google.com, they will let you know. | That is how they got so many people to switch to it. | verdverm wrote: | fwiw, I just started using MS products again and they do the | same thing. I'm not switching because I tried them and Google | still has superior products | Black101 wrote: | It never made me switch to Chrome (still use Firefox), but | I think that it made a lot of people switch... by having a | daily popup telling them that they are using the wrong | browser. | SuchAnonMuchWow wrote: | no, what made people switch was that chrome is the | default browser on android | verdverm wrote: | Firefox slowness sent me there and Chromes account | management is what keeps me there | [deleted] | twobitshifter wrote: | You think chrome is superior to the new Edge Browser which | is based on chromium? | marderfarker2 wrote: | Maybe they rank higher because their product is superior? I | mean is there really anything better than Google Earth? | tarboreus wrote: | Right, and Froogle was the best shopping service in 2004. | That's why we all still shop on Froogle to this day. | egman_ekki wrote: | The actual Earth is, arguably, a bit better, imo. | jjk166 wrote: | Weird, I typically get websites in my search results, how | do I enable celestial bodies? | kthartic wrote: | I don't think that was their point. Why is Google Earth | ranked higher than, oh I dunno, Earth? | sgc wrote: | Google earth is just one more website about the earth, and | you can't get the real thing through your tiny tubes. If | more people searching for earth want to use that website to | explore the real earth rather than say, read the wikipedia | article about the earth (and most obviously more people use | GE than visit that one page on the wiki), it is correct for | it to be ranked higher according to most typical search | algorithms. OPs point is perfectly valid, it's just not a | great example. | e-clinton wrote: | Key word in your statement being "maybe". No one knows for | sure if they're exploiting their advantages or not. That's | really the biggest issue: the lack of transparency. I think | if companies want to participate in their own marketplaces, | they need to be required to publish all data they have that | could potentially give them an edge. This obviously isn't | possible in many cases, so companies will just not go through | the trouble. | eecc wrote: | > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on | their mobile devices? We already went through this with | Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? | | Nope, total Apple and Oranges. | | Forbidding other HTML rendering engines on iOS, prevented other | massive players (Google) from forcing their browser platform | onto Apple's user base and Electron-ized Apple's ecosystem | making iOS a marginal runtime. | | Or worse, Adobe could have spun their own Adobe Flash app "now | with web access too!". | | It's not competitive advantage, it's strategy | pjc50 wrote: | You're pitching the prevention of certain competitive | products as a good thing, which it may have been for Apple, | but it is absolutely not for the consumer. | eecc wrote: | You think so? So please elaborate on how having your | platform marginalized to a mere window decoration around | the ubiquitous, 100% dominant UI toolkit (Crome) is better | for the consumer. | | Besides, there's plenty of choice on the market, unless you | want to complain about a car manufacturer selling only | their own models... | pjc50 wrote: | Platforms _should_ disappear into the background. The | great benefit of the web is that it presents roughly the | same UI everywhere across all manner of devices and | browsers. (The big downside of course is that it 's not | _exactly_ the same). | | > car manufacturer selling only their own models... | | My car doesn't tell me who or what it's willing to | transport. Yet. | mr_toad wrote: | Agreed, but many people are arguing that browsers should | be able to alter the system outside the browser (e.g | desktop shortcuts and notifications). | | I think that these things should remain under the control | of the operating system. | pjc50 wrote: | > browsers should be able to alter the system outside the | browser (e.g desktop shortcuts and notifications). | | I've not seen the argument about desktop shortcuts? | | Notifications are one of those features which has already | been added and is a nuisance in 99% of cases, but I can | see there being one or two use cases where a website | sending notifications without requiring a full native app | (and approval process!) is worthwhile. | | The "should this hardware be available to the browser" | fight happens for every feature. | spacemanmatt wrote: | > unless you want to complain about a car manufacturer | selling only their own models | | It does seem like you get it wrong on purpose. | Mindwipe wrote: | > It's not competitive advantage, it's strategy | | It's 100% competitive advantage. The main driver of Apple's | lack of support for Flash was to damage the web's ability to | distribute DRMed video and force it into apps on iOS, where | Apple could rent seek a 30% commission from subscription | fees. | briandear wrote: | Nonsense. There is extensive writing on the subject | including internal memos from Steve Jobs on Flash -- and | you are 100% incorrect. | eecc wrote: | Can you elaborate and link to sources plz? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the App Store | was not even around for the first iPhone. | | Perhaps the decision to not include flash could have been | due to performance/battery? | eecc wrote: | Precisely. Jobs didn't want to be at the mercy of anyone | else's priority, strategies or convenience. | | Remember: Adobe was dragging its feet on MacOS because | why bother, Windows PC _is_ the market, iPhone was mostly | welcomed as a "won't fly" and Flash for iOS would have | been another drama of unfixed vuls, shoddy performance | and battery drain. (I guess everyone forgot or wasn 't | still around, reminder: | https://www.extremetech.com/computing/134551-why-flash- | faile...) | | Not unreasonable to imagine Google making Chrome engine | prio 1 on Android and "perhaps later" on iOS. | | You can imagine how well Jobs took that. | jiofih wrote: | How different is that from Microsoft and IE? | yuri91 wrote: | it is worse... at least you could always install a | competing browser engine on Windows if you wanted | lallysingh wrote: | iOS isn't 90%+ of the phone market. | MagnumOpus wrote: | IOS is 100% of the iPhone market though, given that | unlike Windows in the PC market, Apple disallows | installing an alternative OS, and an alternative app | store in addition to disallowing alternate browsers. | eecc wrote: | So? Go buy an Android device. You're blaming a | manufacturer for being 100% of its own product market?! | xxs wrote: | The percentage of usage is actually unimportant (at least | in the EU, I know it's not an EU news piece) | jiofih wrote: | In some markets it's pretty close (US teenagers for | example). | tobylane wrote: | Is there a relevant law or court case that takes sectors | of consumers into account? That one could be more | relevant because they are vulnerable, or less relevant | because the devices are bought in their parents name. | throwaways885 wrote: | As a teenager I felt pushed out of conversations because | I was an Android user, and got written off as a green | bubble. | salawat wrote: | That's the most ridiculous division known to man. | | You don't use the right back end, therefore you aren't | cool. | | It's absolutely absurd. I mean, about on par for | teenagers, but gah... I can picture the conversation | about "Your "friends" are complete morons, and you | shouldn't feel ashamed or ostracized at what is probably | one of the most silliest social signaling practices on | the planet." | | It hurts being an engineer sometimes. These networks are | marvels of human ingenuity, and people take them and use | superficial differences in UI and completely miss the | point. | | God bless. I keep thinking UX/UI can't get any worse, but | what humanity takes out of it never ceases to amaze. | lallysingh wrote: | > That's the most ridiculous division known to man. | | Ha! They're teenagers. They will invent new divisions as | needed. | capableweb wrote: | How does preventing competition in a specific application | category lead to Apple preventing Google from "forcing" iOS | users to use Chrome? Not sure I follow your argument here or | how allowing browsers would somehow make it possible for | Google to automatically install Chrome for iOS users. | | Imagine if Google suddenly made their Chrome browser behave | differently on Google websites compared to others, like 0.5 | the performance for no reason. This could be seen as a | strategy to increase engagement on Google properties, but I'm | fairly sure most of us would see it as an attempt on | monopolizing the web in Google's favor. Why is it different | for Apple and browsers? They are intentionally making it | impossible to create competitors to their own browser, for no | technological reason besides "we don't want that". | eecc wrote: | They are intentionally protecting their ecosystem from the | thread of an incumbent strangling their growth and | marginalizing their strategy. | | From a market dominant position it would be Antitrust | material. Not in this case: | https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market- | sha... | airstrike wrote: | Now find the same chart for the US only | eecc wrote: | Why? I'm European, what's so special about US market? | | (rhetorical question, I know) | heavyset_go wrote: | iOS has more than 60% of the US market. | eecc wrote: | I guess you weren't there when Flash was the thing. | jimktrains2 wrote: | > Imagine if Google suddenly made their Chrome browser | behave differently on Google websites compared to others, | like 0.5 the performance for no reason. | | I don't have to imagine. https://tech.co/news/google- | slowed-youtube-firefox-edge-2019... | yepthatsreality wrote: | Not to mention the 2010's where Google only allowed | products (such as hangouts) to run on Chrome. | nova22033 wrote: | _Is that really a fair ranking? We don 't even know,_ | | We _kinda_ know because people keep using Google. If people | thought the results weren 't good, they would switch to bing. | Mordisquitos wrote: | The terms "fair ranking" and "good results" are not | synonymous. We _do not_ know if Google provides a fair | ranking. | Jasper_ wrote: | > We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but | suddenly it's different? | | What happened was that the DOJ did everything they could to get | Microsoft broken up. They got pretty much the entire country on | their side, and during the trials they extracted some hilarious | quotes from Microsoft and Bill Gates, like arguing about the | definition of the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" | email. Details emerged about their "Embrace-Extend-Extinguish" | policy and their plans to try and bulldoze the free software | movement. | | Popular perception of Bill Gates and Microsoft at that time | sunk to an all-time low [0], picturing Gates as a greedy global | capitalist, and Microsoft as a cartoonishly evil company. There | was no small fix, the only option left was to to shatter | Microsoft into multiple pieces, the way Bell Labs had gone. | That's what the final ruling said. | | Then George W. Bush comes in, clears out basically the entirety | of the DOJ, guts them to a fifth of their size, and tells them | "never do that again". The case then went to appeal, where it | was reduced from a mandatory break-up to a small fine. | | The DOJ never went after big tech again. Bill Gates resigned as | CEO, and decided to go into philanthropy to clear their image, | like many capitalists do. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE | saurik wrote: | FWIW, looking just at your final paragraph (as I agree | strongly with everything you said, but feel a need to note | that it wasn't all a _complete_ waste of time): Bill Gates | was effectively forced out of his own company after nearly | driving the company to destruction by provoking a judge with | his arrogance, and the Microsoft that was left after this | mess--notably run by Steve Balmer--had a very difficult time | hiring strong talent or having any reasonable strategy for | its offerings, and as such was no longer organizationally | able to maintain some basic technologies that had become | mired in the antitrust case (such as Internet Explorer, which | was trivially disrupted by Chrome, and is now effectively | gone). | ehutch79 wrote: | Shouldn't this also affect cable companies and what not? | mLuby wrote: | I hope whatever comes out of this doesn't end up creating a | regulatory moat around big incumbents that start-ups can't muster | the resources to cross. | | Only government regulation is powerful enough to counteract | capitalism's natural tendency toward aggregation. | [deleted] | dbetteridge wrote: | "A year after initiating the investigation, we received testimony | from the Chief Executive Officers of the investigated companies: | Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai. For | nearly six hours, we pressed for answers about their business | practices, including about evidence concerning the extent to | which they have exploited, entrenched, and expanded their power | over digital markets in anticompetitive and abusive ways. Their | answers were often evasive and non-responsive, raising fresh | questions about whether they believe they are beyond the reach of | democratic oversight. | | Although these four corporations differ in important ways, | studying their business practices has revealed common problems. | First, each platform now serves as a gatekeeper over a key | channel of distribution. By controlling access to markets, these | giants can pick winners and losers throughout our economy. They | not only wield tremendous power, but they also abuse it by | charging exorbitant fees, imposing oppressive contract terms, and | extracting valuable data from the people and businesses that rely | on them. Second, each platform uses its gatekeeper position to | maintain its market power. | | By controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they have | surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals, and | have ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their competitive | threats. And, finally, these firms have abused their role as | intermediaries to further entrench and expand their dominance. | Whether through self-preferencing, predatory pricing, or | exclusionary conduct, the dominant platforms have exploited their | power in order to become even more dominant." | | Well they're not wrong... | ma2rten wrote: | Where did you copy that from? I don't see the report linked | anywhere. | | EDIT: I found the link further down the thread | https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20210414/111451/HMKP... | dbetteridge wrote: | Yeah sorry had intended to reply on that comment. Oh well! | lotsofpulp wrote: | > By controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they | have surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals, | and have ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their | competitive threats. | | Is this accurate? I would think control of the infrastructure | is with companies like Comcast/ATT/Verizon/Verisign/ and others | who you can't bypass by typing in different characters into the | URL bar. | | Would it be more accurate to write the big tech companies have | control of the network of users? | indigochill wrote: | Comcast and friends are essentially utility companies. If the | internet is "a bunch of tubes", they keep the tubes clear. | They don't get involved at the content layer. Comcast may be | a crappy provider in many ways, but they've never made the | news for politically-motivated network traffic filtering. | | FAANG on the other hand all get their hands dirty in deciding | what content people get to see and what not, which would | largely be a non-issue if there was mainstream competition, | but there isn't, so rather than change their behavior and | support/make/demand alternatives, consumers (including | politicians) want Big Brother to step in, somehow forgetting | that rarely solves anything and will simply consolidate more | power with those who already have it. | shockeychap wrote: | Agree. Big Brother is just as corrupt and just adds another | element to the smoke and mirrors presentation. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | PG tried to say that "tech" was focused on building better | mousetraps, but that's hogwash. THIS is precisely the play that | all VC's are after now: find a channel, throw billions at it, | run everyone else out of the space, and monopolize it. When | people talk glowingly about "unicorns," this is what they're | really saying: monopolies. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | This is well known. The thesis of Peter Thiel's Zero to One | was precisely about how a tech company's ultimate goal should | be about creating a monopoly. An op-ed by Thiel in the WSJ | talk about exactly this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter- | thiel-competition-is-for-... | therealbilly wrote: | Does anybody seriously expect anything to change. On Capitol | Hill, they are going to posture and make grandiose statements. | Later in the day, everybody will meet at one of those fancy | beltway pubs and get all cozy. | hnunionthrow wrote: | At the expense of whataboutism, I'd love to see some kind of | legislation against themselves as opposed to trying to bring | these business entities under their heel. Something along the | lines of: "GOP and Democratic party hold a duopolistic power over | significant portions of our political representation options. | This duopoly moment must end" (borrowed from the article and | replaced appropriately). | | Every business that they are trying to "crackdown" against faces | varying levels of competition in almost every space they are in, | and consumers either have numerous options to choose from to get | a particular service, or the default that they end up using on is | actually the best among the available alternatives. | | God forbid politicians focus on taking action against actual | monopolies as opposed to these stupid theatrics. | LatteLazy wrote: | A lot of this just looks like punishing success to me. Or rather | success combined with a lack of political involvement aka | donation. | | If it cares about monopolies go look at comcast or Disney or big | chunks of agriculture or Boeing etc. If the house really cares | about privacy, it should look at the patriot act. If it cares | about workers, go look at Walmart. | swebs wrote: | What market is Disney a monopoly in? | [deleted] | thrav wrote: | Soon to expire copyright material (stories, characters, etc.) | that they then block from ever entering the public domain. | | https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/01/disney-public- | domain-... | InitialLastName wrote: | I'm not sure there's any chance that the US government | comes down on the side of "You know this monopoly power we | (the US government) explicitly grant and protect by | default? You can't have it any more" | Mindwipe wrote: | Disney owns considerably less than 1% of soon to expire | copyright material, so no. | [deleted] | LatteLazy wrote: | Disney took 45% of the US box office in 2019. Much more if if | you narrow it to kids media. There are few competitors in | either market so it's an oligopoly. You can see the effect in | spiraling prices. | | Amazon only managed 35% of ecommerce. There are a lot of | other companies trying to eat their market (Ebay, Shopify, | Ali). Hence prices there stay low. | lotsofpulp wrote: | There's also a much lower barrier to entry in online | retail. | | Technically, the barrier to kids' media is low too, and | there's tons of it, for free even, but it's mostly garbage. | What Disney has is a curated, higher quality (according to | the market) product. | briandear wrote: | They own the Disney Theme Park Market. Vendors have to get | approved to sell in Disney parks, a commissions gets paid to | Disney for each sale, and Disney doesn't allow Universal | Studios products in any of the Disney park stores. | capableweb wrote: | > A lot of this just looks like punishing success to me | | I guess if you think "success" means companies ending up as | monopolies, I guess you're right. In general, capitalism | gravitates to a "winner takes it all" situations as with more | capital, you can also capture more of the market. But we also | generally prefer to have many players in the market so | competition still exists. | | All this work here is trying to prevent monopolies from | forming, because currently the US is very much lacking in any | tooling to prevent monopolies, as we see in a lot of | industries, not just technology. | | A step in the right direction it seems to me. | LatteLazy wrote: | The standard in most places (US included) is that monopolies | (and duopolies etc) are allowed. But they are not allowed to | abuse their positions. | | That leaves us with 2 issues I think: | | 1. If people want competitive markets, that's fine but that's | a new policy, and big tech is a bad place to start because | it's much more competitive than many many other markets. You | can pick 1001 other stores than amazon, but you will be | paying with Visa or Mastercard... | | 2. We need to regulate a lot of new utilities. Are you sure | you want the FCC deciding what innovations are allowed in | search or social media? Aren't there massive free speech | issues there? | aviraldg wrote: | Not looking forward to a future where the US sabotages its best | tech companies and we all end up working for Alibaba, Tencent or | Baidu (or founding startups with the aim of being acquired by | them.) | potatoman22 wrote: | What's wrong with Chinese tech companies? | eric-hu wrote: | Chinese tech companies have to toe the line of the CCP. A | long, drawn out example is being made of Alibaba and Jack Ma | precisely for not toeing the line last fall. | GeneralMayhem wrote: | Some of us don't want to work for the CCP. | eunos wrote: | Eh China already made an example of Ali anyway (2.8B fine). | ashneo76 wrote: | Can the precedent from this be applied to AT&T and comcast?? | bradlys wrote: | Sure would be nice but I don't see it happening. This seems | like political theater more than anything. | | You're going to need to get an entirely new electorate to get | anything real happening. | alexarnesen wrote: | Below is the CV of most of the authors / contributors. | | I could only find one person with a technical background that is | at least computing-adjacent. | | (I didn't produce this research, I commissioned it, so there may | be factual errors.) | | Link to full research: | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kbpQgU5YQSOmyyhOUCkmjCrrj4C... | | SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | PROFILES | | _Technical staff: Anna Lenhart_ | | Anna Lenhart: Technologist - B.S. Civil Engineering and | Engineering Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2011) - | M.P.P., Science & Technology Policy (Artificial Intelligence), | University of Michigan (2018) | | _Non-technical staff: everyone else_ | | Slade Bond: Chief Counsel - B.A. History, Mary Washington College | (2008) - J.D., University of Kansas School of Law (2011) - LL.M., | Intellectual Property and Information Privacy, The George | Washington University Law School (2012) | | Lina Khan: Counsel - B.A. Political Theory, Williams College - | J.D., Yale Law School | | Phillip Berenbroick: Counsel - B.A. Political Science, Tufts | University (2004) - Law, University of Virginia School of Law | (2008) - JD, Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School | | Amanda Lewis: Counsel on Detail, Federal Trade Commission - B.A. | Political Science; Latin American Studies, New York University - | J.D. Law, Columbia Law School | | Joseph Ehrenkrantz: Special Assistant - B.A. English and | Government & Politics, University of Maryland (2014) - J.D. Law, | Georgetown University Law Center (2020) | | Catherine Larsen: Special Assistant - B.A. Political Science and | Government, English, University of Nebraska (2014) - J.D. Law, | New York University School of Law (2020) | | Joseph Van Wye: Professional Staff Member - B.A. Political | Science and Government, Brown University (2015) | | COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PROFILES | | _Non-technical staff: everyone_ | | Perry Apelbaum: Staff Director and Chief Counsel - Bachelor | General Studies, University of Michigan (1981) - J.D. Harvard | University, 1984 | | Aaron Hiller: Deputy Chief Counsel - BS Biology & BA Philosophy, | University of North Carolina (2003) - J.D., MPP, Georgetown | University Law Center (2007) | | Shadawn Reddick-Smith: Communications Director - B.S. | Communications and Public Relations, Towson University | | Jessica Presley: Director of Digital Strategy - Penn State | University | | Madeline Strasser: Chief Clerk - B.A. International Politics, | National Security Policy Studies, Penn State University (2017) | | Amy Rutkin: Chief of Staff | | John Williams: Parliamentarian - B.A. University of Virginia | (1988) - Ph.D. Medieval History, The University of Chicago (1995) | - J.D. Georgetown University Law Center (2001) | | Daniel Schwarz: Director of Strategic Communications - B.A. | Political Science and Jewish Studies, Indiana University (2008) - | MSc Politics and Communication, London School of Economics and | Political Science (2011) | | Moh Sharma: Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy | Advisor - B.A. and M.A. Economics, University of Connecticut - | M.S. Global Affairs, New York University - J.D., City University | of New York School of Law | | John Doty: Senior Advisor - B.A. History, Middlebury College | | David Greengrass: Senior Counsel - BA Government, Wesleyan | University (1998) - JD, Law, American University Washington | College of Law | | Arya Hariharan: Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel - BA Law and | Society, International Studies, American University (2007) - JD, | The College of William and Mary - Marshall Wythe Law School | (2012) | | Matthew Robinson: Counsel - B.A. Yale University (2003) - JD New | York University School of Law (2012) | | Kayla Hamedi: Deputy Press Secretary - B.A. Political Science and | Government, The George Washington University (2015) - M.A. | Political Management, The George Washington University | graderjs wrote: | If this went through, what second order effects would there be | that could be business opportunities? Particularly for a | bootstrapped or small startup to get into. | pyrophane wrote: | > Despite their ire, most Republicans have not backed the | report's proposed changes in antitrust law but instead discussed | stripping social media companies of legal protections they are | accorded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The | law gives companies immunity over content posted on their sites | by users. | | Most of what I have heard Republicans focusing on has been "anti- | Conservative bias" in social media platform, but I don't | understand how limiting Section 230 protections would address | that. Is the idea that any proposals would require moderation | practices that follow certain standards set out to avoid | "political bias?" I can't understand this push as anything other | than a punitive measure to hurt tech companies. | kaiju0 wrote: | They wanted to hold speech to account for things they didn't | like. Right now they can't. | root_axis wrote: | One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is bring | big tech business operations to a screeching halt. Republicans | are betting on the fact that big tech would be willing to do | _anything_ to avoid that outcome. | dragonwriter wrote: | > One thing repealing section 230 would definitely do is | bring big tech business operations to a screeching halt. | | Not all big tech business, just the no-prior-review | dissemination of user-generated content. | | _EDIT_ : At least, without some kind of financial protection | against publication liability, such as the user providing | indemnification with proof of adequate liability coverage. | So, things like say Github Enterprise would still exist but | probably be more costly once all associated costs are take | into account, but free-of-charge individual accounts would | either not continue or, if MS could subsidize them from | Enterprise profits and saw value in having them, they'd be | much more aggressively scanned for "bad" content and | summarily deleted if there were any signs detected. And the | same kind of calculus would apply all over the net. | | It would definitely narrow the voices that have reach, both | in number and ideological distribution. | root_axis wrote: | You're right, I should have said "social media" instead of | "big tech". | dragonwriter wrote: | While I quibble with your original presentation, the | impact is _much_ bigger than "social media" as usually | understood; see my edit. While it wouldn't kill big tech, | it would radically transform big tech _and every person, | business, and other entity that interacts with it_. | | It _might_ not be the single biggest economy-slowing | piece of legislation adopted in the history of the US, | but...ok, yeah, it definitely would be. | vharuck wrote: | >Most of what I have heard Republicans focusing on has been | "anti-Conservative bias" in social media platform, but I don't | understand how limiting Section 230 protections would address | that. | | It's a meaningless flag to gather behind, not something they | ever wanted to actually do. They can shout their support | because they know the Democrats will stop it and thus fall into | the "bad guy" role. It's a wedge issue now. | bobthepanda wrote: | Depending on what happens the net outcome of repealing 230 | might actually hurt conservatism on online platforms, since | right now Twitter, Youtube, Facebook et al are not party to | things like the billion dollar Dominion lawsuit against Fox | News and Newsmax. | | Those news networks have deplatformed Mike Lindell because him | actively spewing conspiracy theories on the Dominion voting | machines undermines their defense in that lawsuit. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Most of what I have heard Republicans focusing on has been | "anti-Conservative bias" in social media platform, but I don't | understand how limiting Section 230 protections would address | that. | | The idea is to return to the non-online liability regime where | reduced (distributor, notice-based) liability for unlawful | content generally requires the _absence_ of involvement in | crafting /altering/moderating content (though it does allow | binary select/not-select, including with an ideological bias.) | 230 allows immunity to publisher (on its face, and as applied | by the courts even distributor) liability so long as its terms | are met. | | This probably _wouldn't_ help the cause Republicans nominally | seek to advance with it (though it would help the cause of | narrowing political engagement that they are pursuing through | every other means, which suggests an alternative motivation to | the public one), since while it might encourage providers to | not moderate content from users while continuing to allow them | to distribute material on the site, it would _encourage_ | blanket bans like the one Trump received, at a minimum, or | shutting off public access entirely; its dubious that free | public distribution, even with ad support, is viable online | with distributor liability generally applied , and its clear it | is not with publisher liability generally applied. Responding | to notice of unlawful content on more than a best-effort basis | (as distributor liability would require) is very hard to scale, | and preemptively preventing it entirely as publisher liability | would require absolutely does not scale. | shockeychap wrote: | Given the volume and profitably of tech trading by members of | Congress (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26821601) I | have ZERO confidence that any useful legislation will come of it. | It will just be a bunch of earnest and disingenuous theatre by | the very people profiting from a bunch of companies who make | Microsoft circa 1995 look like a kitten. | | For my part, I think the fundamental business model of profiting | from user engagement (where screen time is money) is toxic, and | we can't fix anything until we find a way to effectively | eliminate it. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | They could just as easily profit from shorting tech etc. True | whales make money on the up and down. | justapassenger wrote: | Shorting is much more legally risky. SEC basically doesn't | view shorts as investors, and that has interesting outcome. | | The don't care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you | profit from it, as other investors also profit. | | But causing stock to go down opens you to much higher | liability, for hurting investors. And if you profit of it via | short, you're in much more legal risk. | gruez wrote: | >The don't care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and | you profit from it, as other investors also profit. | | They clearly do, as we've seen with musk's "funding | secured" tweet. | justapassenger wrote: | Do they? He got financial slap on his wrist, didn't have | to admit to any wrong doing, kept absolute power in the | company, ignored any corrective actions of the | settlement, and continues to pump stock on weekly basis, | to a place that made him one of the richest people in the | world. And in the free time he's pumping other meme | investments, just for fun. | | SEC vs Musk is perfect example of how powerless/not | interested in pumping stock schemes regulators are. Until | stock start to go down, then they get more power. | brigade wrote: | On the other hand, did Musk ever get in trouble for his | "stock price too high" tweet? | shockeychap wrote: | Fair point, but there's less predictability (both in timing | and valuations) on the way down. It's also harder to disguise | the insider nature of shorts based on upcoming legislation. | | On top of that, these companies spend millions on lobbying | and have SO MUCH INFLUENCE among DC insiders that reform | doesn't have a chance. It's more corrupt than anything | Hollywood ever made about Big Oil. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | I'll agree with your second point. How can we begin fixing | it? | leppr wrote: | Have citizens participate in writing legislation instead | of deferring to a small entrenched elite? | | I believe our elders called it Democracy. Nowadays they | call it decentralization. | mr_toad wrote: | > I believe our elders called it Democracy. | | Direct government by the people is sometimes called | demarchy, in contrast to democracy. | | "The rule of the people has the fairest name of all." | kenny87 wrote: | Very nice to see to genuine interest on HN in solving our | Democracy's problems, instead the general cynicism, | apathy and self-interest we all too often see. But to be | fair, I think it's first important to realize that we are | discussing historical forces. The kind of movements that | we all read about in school, are happening now. And I | think when we look at history we'll see that social | forces strong enough to reform empires have always | started in the marginalized communities. Our role here is | to become active participants, on a day-to-day basis, in | these communities and aid them, both technically and | morally, in building -- and here is the key concept -- | decentralized quasi-autonomous [1] communities. No amount | of reform, sorry being a cynic, will "fix" Washington and | its relationship with "corporate capitalism". The Supreme | Court settled this question, campaign money is "free | speech". [2] But we can build new social structures in | the gaps. It happened about 2,000 years in empire built | in Rome. Why not today? | | [1] http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralizati | on/admi... [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC | shockeychap wrote: | I'm not sure, but I think we have to start with | Congressional reform. I don't generally subscribe to the | notion that legislating should be a lucrative, lifelong | profession. | | I think term limits, pay reduction, and abolishment of | the Congressional pension would be an excellent start. It | would eliminate some of the career aspects of legislating | while forcing lobbyists to regularly deal with new | people, somewhat limiting their influence. | | However, getting this would require Congress to vote on | something that's against their own interest. | thejohnconway wrote: | If you make getting into politic an even less certain | career, you're going to limit it more and more to the | independently wealthy. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | I think Congressional term limits would be one of the | easiest fixes for the current state of affairs. | Overturning Citizens United and repealing the 17th would | be great steps too. However, I think we should pay | Congress people at least $1M/yr. Pay them like Fortune | 100 CEO's. Make it so they don't even CARE about playing | games with insider trading. If we want to run this | capitalist country like the capitalists we think we are, | then scrap the notion that Representatives were supposed | to be farmers that went and represented their districts | for a couple of sessions, and then went back to work. Pay | them in a way that attracts truly talented people, | instead of the usual suspects who have just enough | intelligence to recognize that they have just enough | EMOTIONAL intellect to handle the campaigning and the | backroom dealings. Of course, then we get into the | argument about whether the average Fortune CEO is really | any more talented than the average representative, but | you get the idea. | shockeychap wrote: | The tone of this is a little hard to read, so forgive me | if I've misread anything. | | I mostly agree with the other changes, except for | increasing pay as a means of eliminating the motivation | to play games. If there's one thing we've seen play out | over and over, it's that excesses and greed just beget | more greed. Look at the number of executives, financial | managers, and politicians who already had vast wealth yet | STILL engage in shenanigans. Furthermore, the job of | legislating is an elected one, which means it will always | go to those who are best able to convince the most people | to vote for them (frequently by promises and pandering), | not those who will do the best job. Now, I don't think | legislators should get pauper's pay, but I also think we | should do what we can to limit it's use as a career path | for power and wealth. | | I have no problems with capitalism. If the market has | healthy competition and the referees (regulations and the | courts) are fair and transparent, capitalism is good. | Unfortunately, many of those elements have gotten worse | in recent decades. We regulate more than ever, but it's | the small businesses who suffer the burden and have no | real voice in DC. | | Capitalism done right means that I'm not upset by Wal- | Mart's success, as it's kept in check by other companies | like Amazon and Target. If you think anybody is | invincible, take a look at what happened to Sears, | K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us. Capitalism done wrong means that | big companies use regulations and unfair referees to keep | out competition. The power wielded by FAANG today dwarfs | anything Microsoft ever had. | bradlys wrote: | The people you want running the country aren't likely | people who are willing to get paid minimum wage too. | | You want the best? Usually have to pay more. People in | congress are barely paid anything as far as the private | market goes. (<$200k/yr and that's while having to live | in two places and frequently travel between them) | Considering how many have law degrees and other | professional degrees, being a congress person certainly | is a step down in terms of certain income. They just make | up for it with should be illegal forms of market | manipulation. (And other things) | shockeychap wrote: | I don't want legislators who think they're "running the | country". That's the first problem. Rulemaking should | never be construed with "running". | | Secondly, I've never had any illusion about trying to | attract "the best" in Congress. It's an elected position, | both the House and Senate, and so it will merely attract | those with aspirations of power and wealth who are good | at campaigning. Oftentimes we also get people who forge a | decades-long career by leveraging the access to power and | influence they have in such a position. This last part is | toxic, and won't be fixed by increasing pay. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | You can profit when a stock tanks too. | undefined1 wrote: | wow, you're not kidding. what are the chances they are going to | bite their main investments _and_ key donor class? | | "About 98% of political contributions from internet companies | this cycle went to Democrats" | | https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-electi... | | https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-elec... | | https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/30/21540616/silicon-valle... | hn8788 wrote: | Obama's campaign manager said that Facebook flat out told | them "we're on the same side" when they allowed them to abuse | the same API Cambridge Analytica did. | yao420 wrote: | Facebook, like all corporations, play every politician. | | What do you think Trump and Zuckerberg talked about when | they would have dinner at the White House? | mistrial9 wrote: | I suspect that France has their own version on this (years in the | making) and will act in alignment with the USA as the fines and | oversight begin to form. | Inspiringer wrote: | I believe it is in United States interest to let Big Tech do | whatever they want to complete with China. | williesleg wrote: | Just a shakedown. | roenxi wrote: | I support anything that makes life harder for the FAANG style | companies - I'm just never going to believe that the US house | will do what this article signals they do. | | Facebook and Twitter are profound influences on politics. I look | on the politically aligned mainstream news, practices like | gerrymandering, the general state of political discourse, do some | quick joining of dots and ... well. Political involvement isn't | going to move the situation in a direction I like. | | FAANG is bad. I'll be on the record as saying whatever comes out | of the House will be proven worse in time. | izacus wrote: | I'm not an american so can you explain if Facebook and Twitter | actually have bigger sway than obviously partisan news media | like Fox News? | | (At least in our part of the world that media seriously | outstrips any kind of influence FB and Twitter yelling has.) | mlac wrote: | I'm providing the numbers below for context, but cable news | has a lot less daily active users than Twitter or Facebook. | In my view, though, the daily news watchers are much more | entrenched in their views, less likely to change, and believe | strongly that the rest of the country watches the news like | they do. I've had family members on both sides of the isle be | extremely passionate and get physically worked up that the | world was ending because they relied on cable news as their | source of truth. The Fox follower was miserable when Obama | was in office and the MSNBC follower was miserable more often | than not when Trump was in office. | | "Over the first full week of 2021 (Jan. 4 through Jan. 10), | CNN ranked first among cable networks (roughly 2.8 million | viewers per day; 4.2 million in primetime) followed by MSNBC | (2.3 million per day ;3.8 million in primetime) and Fox News | in third (1.7 million per day; 3.2 million in primetime)."[1] | | [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/16/fox- | news-v... | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | What I've noticed over the past couple of years is that | almost every article or news segment of importance is talking | about, and quoting, Tweets. Whether Twitter has more | influence than cable news now, I don't know, but it has | embedded itself like a tick into the news rubric. | slibhb wrote: | Since Trump was banned from Twitter have you heard anything | that he has said? | | Whether or not you use Twitter and Facebook, that's what | journalists spend their time doing, so one way or another | it's affecting the news. | srswtf123 wrote: | This seems like a massive problem. Instead of going out and | getting a story, they let trendy topics on Twitter & | Facebook dominate? Well that doesn't seem like their job to | me --- it seems lazy and self-serving. | | Not sure what else to expect; they're human after all. | redis_mlc wrote: | The camps are Facebook/Twitter/MSM (far left/Marxist), | Youtube (left), NTD/Joe Rogan/Rubin (center), Fox (center- | right.) | | Leftists do not watch center or center-right, so they don't | know anything about Jan. 6 facts, Hunter Biden, election | fraud, #blm fraud, CCP non-kinetic warfare or political | Islam. | jfengel wrote: | It's hard to measure. It's part of a network of feedback | loops. There's no good way to single out any piece of it. | | Fox News pumps legitimacy into it. It's explicitly partisan | but done in the style of a conventional news broadcast. That | helps normalize and smooth the echo chamber that comes from | the generalized outrage machine of social media. That allows | the extreme wing and the supposedly moderate wing to coexist, | while slowly shifting the Overton window away from the latter | and towards the former. | | So there's no way to say which is more important. They use | each other, not always in ways that they like but ultimately | towards keeping them pointed in the same direction. The | combination is so much more effective than any of them alone, | while simultaneously having enough redundancy that you could | remove any one of them but quickly reroute around that | damage. | indigochill wrote: | > can you explain if Facebook and Twitter actually have | bigger sway than obviously partisan news media like Fox News? | | More people get their news from social media than from... | let's call it "big media" (CNN, Fox, etc). Sometimes that's | from people linking content from those sources, but the point | being people are spending a -lot- more time trawling social | media than they are specifically checking their news media | feeds. | jiofih wrote: | The top 10 tech companies have collectively acquired and shut | down _hundreds_ of small, successful startups. | | I believe this is very detrimental to the web and the economy. | Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. What | are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%? | granshaw wrote: | The whole notion of starting a company, possibly ignoring | profits, with a buyout as the endgame is frankly ridiculous, | and emblematic of the excesses and war chests that these big | corps yield. | | What happened to building a profitable company, or at least one | close enough to ipo, and "making it" that way? | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | There are people leading those companies, but they're so few | and far between that you can probably list them off the top | of your head in the tech space. When a successful company | like GitHub can't pass up double-digit billions, then, | really, what hope is there? Companies like Microsoft have | $130B of cash on hand, and (almost) everyone has a price. | They can go buy several more of those companies, and that's | why we hear a new $20B buyout rumor every week. If you could, | you would too. IMO, that's why we need to start capping | company size/valuation. There's no social good in Microsoft | owning all the things they do. It only benefits the | executives at MS and large shareholders, and I think they're | benefitting enough already. | bcrosby95 wrote: | > but they're so few and far between that you can probably | list them off the top of your head in the tech space. | | I disagree. You can't name them because they aren't worth | billions of dollars and they don't make any headlines. | They're usually called "lifestyle" businesses on here, and | while sometimes this site discusses them most discussions | are about building the next Google. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > What happened to building a profitable company, or at least | one close enough to ipo, and "making it" that way? | | Nothing, the option is still there. Just depends if you want | to risk it and work your ass off, or accept the security of a | lower reward now. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | >Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. | What are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%? | | No they don't. To rephrase, you're suggesting that companies | are entitled to getting bought out. That's ridiculous. Owning a | company is a privilege, people who abuse that privilege, | billionaires, should be stripped of that power. Corporate | America is cancerous, consuming and destroying everything | indiscriminately for vanity, numbers on a screen, and | authoritarian control over the less privileged. | zepto wrote: | > Owning a company is a privilege. | | A privilege you think should be held by the government? | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Why would you assume I said that. | | Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of | all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants | of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the | people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the | obligation of government to remedy these problems through | action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. | Governmental failure to remedy problems results in | vigilantism without fail. | zepto wrote: | > Why would you assume I said that. | | I didn't. | | > Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs | of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and | wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, | and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it | is the obligation of government to remedy these problems | through action, forceful if need be, against the | offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems | results in vigilantism without fail. | | What has this ominous generalization got to do with the | question? | ryan93 wrote: | It's not a privilege. The company is their property. | Political opinions you dont like on facebook is just | something you are going to have to get over. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | You're talking past my arguments. Owning a company is a | privilege just as much as owning guns are. Companies are | registered with government and violators are prosecuted. Do | I need to link to articles about children getting their | lemonade stands destroyed by cops or what? | ryan93 wrote: | Point taken. I just personally feel like the reasoning | for taking a company needs to be insanely strong. A lot | of current talk on both sides feels very partisan. | jonas21 wrote: | You've gotta be kidding. 99% of companies in the U.S. are | small businesses, and over half of those have annual revenue | under $500K (that's revenue, not profit). In many cases, | small businesses offer immigrants a pathway to the middle | class, despite lack of credentials, connections, or English | skills. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to sell | their business? You talk about "authoritarian control," but | what could be more authoritarian than denying people basic | property rights? | | And even if you limit discussion to only tech startup | companies, taking away the option of selling the company in | the future completely changes the risk calculation. You'd end | up with fewer companies getting started, which would entrench | the big players even more. | dredmorbius wrote: | There's an interesting intersection of monopoly and The Tech | Recruiting Problem which Cory Doctorow highlighted in a | Exponential View (HBS) podcast. | | Acqui-Hiring is the new recruiting model. | | _Very_ roughly paraphrased, assessing tech talent has become | so painfully difficult that the most effective model is | essentially to assign a class assignment to a set of founders, | along with a few million in seed capital, to build some Minimum | Viable Proof of Talent. The seed funders act as matchmakers to | the buying (typically: tech monopoly) firm, and take a finder | 's fee. The project is shut down (it's done its work of | demonstrating competence), and the team is brought into the | acquiring firm. | | https://hbr.org/podcast/2021/01/big-tech-and-a-decade-of-ant... | qweerty wrote: | The answer is to put traitors in federal prison where they | belong. | | The subversion of our democracy should not be taken lightly and | attempts at regulatory capture must be met with harsh punishment. | Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, and many more need to be incarcerated | for the rest of their lives, which may seem harsh, but it's | better than what most traitors get. | redog wrote: | Eat the rich? | ObserverNeutral wrote: | They will break them up. Mark my words. | | People are tired, their products and services are becoming more | and more pushing on a string with regards to quality of life. | | The iPhone is more than 10 years old and nothing new came after | that. | | At the same time people see these mega organizations which are | more powerful than nation states, with people like Bezos worth | 200B. | | When companies are worth 2T with founders worth 200B, the whole | "what have you done for me recently" thing becomes pretty | extreme, very quickly. | | If they want to avoid being broken up they have to at least bring | about nuclear fusion or landing on Mars (maybe that's why Bezos | is doing Blue Origin). | d33lio wrote: | RIP all my QQQ shares ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-16 22:00 UTC)