18 votes

The only way to rein in Big Tech is to treat them as a public service

17 comments

  1. [17]
    meghan
    Link
    Or, you know, enforce anti-trust laws like they were supposed to be and regulate the industry against bad actors. The government already has the power to fix them but don't because of the amount...

    Or, you know, enforce anti-trust laws like they were supposed to be and regulate the industry against bad actors. The government already has the power to fix them but don't because of the amount of lobbying and campaign/infrastructure they provide.

    12 votes
    1. [5]
      TheInvaderZim
      Link Parent
      Anti trust doesnt work on the internet, because centralization is inherent to how the consumer behaves. Amazon and Facebook, for example, both emerged because the consumer wanted a single...

      Anti trust doesnt work on the internet, because centralization is inherent to how the consumer behaves. Amazon and Facebook, for example, both emerged because the consumer wanted a single uhiquitous storefront and social network, respectively.

      Either way, how do you break up amazon in such a way that the component sites are not still the default option for their niche? How do you break up facebook while keeping its functionality?

      There are some things that shouls not be happening - companies getting exclusive monopolies on how the ads for said platforms work for example - but in most cases here, antitrust is not the answer

      6 votes
      1. [3]
        spit-evil-olive-tips
        Link Parent
        Amazon could conceivably be broken up into AWS and Retail. The Kindle and Prime Video businesses could probably be broken out further. The main problem would be how tightly coupled their code is -...

        Amazon could conceivably be broken up into AWS and Retail. The Kindle and Prime Video businesses could probably be broken out further.

        The main problem would be how tightly coupled their code is - they have underlying infrastructure with years and years of development put into it.

        I do think antitrust action by the government is necessary, but we need a 21st century version of antitrust. The 19th century antitrust laws won't cut it.

        11 votes
        1. [2]
          TheInvaderZim
          Link Parent
          Youve missed my point on that end, which is that amazon being broken up into those categories doesnt solve the problem, it just fragments it. In any given area that you break these companies into,...

          Youve missed my point on that end, which is that amazon being broken up into those categories doesnt solve the problem, it just fragments it. In any given area that you break these companies into, the market itself will still be markedly hostile to competition, and the fragments will still be the market leader without competition.

          6 votes
          1. Octofox
            Link Parent
            It might help a bit. Currently the big tech companies can expand in to almost any market and totally obliterate the existing market because they are backed by billions coming in from other...

            It might help a bit. Currently the big tech companies can expand in to almost any market and totally obliterate the existing market because they are backed by billions coming in from other sections of the company. Countless companies have been totally wiped out because google has replicated their product but given it away for free.

            7 votes
      2. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Luna
          Link Parent
          You posted the same comment twice, FYI.

          You posted the same comment twice, FYI.

          2 votes
    2. [11]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      I don't think it is a question of trusts or monopolies anymore---it is a question of freedoms and social coherence. These new phenomena are modifying the very fabric of the species, which in...

      I don't think it is a question of trusts or monopolies anymore---it is a question of freedoms and social coherence. These new phenomena are modifying the very fabric of the species, which in itself is not a bad thing, but we can't let companies decide how that happens. Most of what Twitter, YouTube, Google Search, Instagram and Facebook do is becoming a fundamental part of people's lives. Thus, the people need to have a say in it, or actually have the say in it.

      How that's going to happen is the question, and I'm not qualified to answer. One thing is for certain tho, and it is that the targeted ad industry needs to die bubble needs to pop. That is simply the mother of all evil on the internet.

      5 votes
      1. [10]
        meghan
        Link Parent
        for sure, I'm not even actually against monopolies. however, its unfortunate that the companies tend to have to act pretty awful to get themselves in a situation where their a monopoly. i dont...

        for sure, I'm not even actually against monopolies. however, its unfortunate that the companies tend to have to act pretty awful to get themselves in a situation where their a monopoly. i dont think capitalism is necessarily the issue but too often ive seen recently big big companies sidestepping morals in the search for more profits at the detriment to users. and teddy roosevelt era laws dont know how to deal with it

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          elcuello
          Link Parent
          I'm sorry what? That's exactly what capitalism is. Moral and ethics must come from ourselves.

          i dont think capitalism is necessarily the issue but too often ive seen recently big big companies sidestepping morals in the search for more profits at the detriment to users.

          I'm sorry what? That's exactly what capitalism is. Moral and ethics must come from ourselves.

          8 votes
          1. meghan
            Link Parent
            Are you implying companies aren't run by people?

            Are you implying companies aren't run by people?

        2. [7]
          Amarok
          Link Parent
          Monopolies are a natural market activity. Given any market segment and enough time, the thousands of initial players will continue to consolidate and merge until there is an oligopoly or monopoly...

          Monopolies are a natural market activity. Given any market segment and enough time, the thousands of initial players will continue to consolidate and merge until there is an oligopoly or monopoly servicing that market segment. That monopoly will eventually become corrupt and begin exploiting their position of power, it's merely a question of how long it takes for that rot to set in, not if it will happen.

          Monopolies provide certain benefits - they typically force the costs of labor and production to go low, and force efficiency and many other supply-side factors to go high. They are very good at their jobs. That's part of why they are so hard to compete with.

          Usually, one will only fall when a new paradigm emerges in the market that outperforms the old paradigm. Examples would be the death of the early telecom players or early computing behemoths as cell phones and personal computers took off. Spectrum's much-reviled monopoly on cable will be destroyed by fiber and 5G, and that too will consolidate into a monopoly just as reviled as Spectrum is today.

          So, we have this cycle we're stuck with as long as there is a market. The question becomes how does one successfully regulate such large players so as to maximize their benefits and minimize their downsides. Nobody's really provided a convincing answer to that yet, and there's probably a Nobel waiting for whoever does. ;)

          5 votes
          1. meghan
            Link Parent
            I wholeheartedly disagree that this is completely unavoidable.

            That monopoly will eventually become corrupt and begin exploiting their position of power, it's merely a question of how long it takes for that rot to set in, not if it will happen.

            I wholeheartedly disagree that this is completely unavoidable.

            1 vote
          2. [4]
            Papaya
            Link Parent
            Only when the competition is imperfect though, right ? With no barriers to entry or exit, rational buyers, no externalities, perfect information, etc. Monopolies wouldn't exist.

            Monopolies are a natural market activity

            Only when the competition is imperfect though, right ?
            With no barriers to entry or exit, rational buyers, no externalities, perfect information, etc. Monopolies wouldn't exist.

            1. spctrvl
              Link Parent
              By that point though, you're describing a concept that's so far removed from the reality of any conceivable market economy as to be totally irrelevant. I would say that within the constraints in...

              By that point though, you're describing a concept that's so far removed from the reality of any conceivable market economy as to be totally irrelevant. I would say that within the constraints in which market systems operate, monopolies are inevitable just because of the benefits of economies of scale, never mind all of the advantages there are to reap by bad faith actors eliminating competition.

              3 votes
            2. zaarn
              Link Parent
              That reminds me of the famous "for perfect milk production the cow is assumed to be perfectly spherical and in a hard vacuum".

              That reminds me of the famous "for perfect milk production the cow is assumed to be perfectly spherical and in a hard vacuum".

              3 votes
            3. unknown user
              Link Parent
              Rational buyer is impossible. For it to work, every purchase needs to be made with long analyses. Not only in many cases there is no rational option out there, but also the ever growing gap...
              • Exemplary

              Rational buyer is impossible. For it to work, every purchase needs to be made with long analyses. Not only in many cases there is no rational option out there, but also the ever growing gap between the seller and the buyer---big companies deal with millions or even billions of customers---means that individual voices are silent, and group boycotts can only affect the low hanging fruit. Also, you can't do every purchase rationally. Each product, from apples to most complex machines involve national, continental or global networks of many businesses. It is impossible to follow all that. And sometimes you don't have the option, you may need to avoid an entire type of product because you don't like the company. Furthermore when you pop into a market to get a chocolate bar or a bottle of beer, you probably don't want to make a background check on anything that's on the shelf.

              Perfect information is not possible. The amount of information necessary is practically infinite. And companies constantly publish deceiving evil propaganda advertise against such information.

              No barriers to entry is impossible. Big players hold huge amounts of resources, money or otherwise, and huge customer bases. You need stars to align to dream of success in such a market. Especially as an idealist entrepreneur.

              Competition is a great catalyst of innovation. But only if there is fault tolerance. When it is people's lives, there is no fault tolerance. That is why infrastructure, medical entreprise, etc. are heavily regulated everywhere, and there is government ownership or competition in many places. Social media & the web have become infrastructure, and they need to be regulated and operated as such.

              2 votes
          3. Luna
            Link Parent
            I thought (US) ISPs just had local/regional monopolies which they intentionally carve out so they won't compete with each other?

            Spectrum's much-reviled monopoly on cable

            I thought (US) ISPs just had local/regional monopolies which they intentionally carve out so they won't compete with each other?