Genuinely fascinating to see. Despite being a backwoods Southerner building a cabin in the woods, I pay my bills with the sort of job that you'd expect out of some snooty Bay Area transplant that kleinbl00 would fantasize about ramming his car into in traffic, and believe me, this kind of discussion comes up internally at the big tech companies... and nobody's afraid. Technology moves so much faster than legislation that just about all major tech companies, particularly the "big five", are more or less immune to antitrust laws the way they're written in the US. This isn't even new, it's been talked about for years. (On a side note--isn't that second article from 2017 super hopeful and innocent sounding? The tone of journalism has changed so much in such a short time, even on the Editorial side.) This one in particular is such an easy win for Google. Absolute worst-case scenario, you end up with future smartphones that work like PCs sold in Europe--you turn it on, and when you create your user account it asks which search provider you want to use, and which browser you want to install. Woooooooo scary. That didn't reduce Microsoft's footprint in Europe any, and it's not even remotely scary to any modern tech company. I'd bet you a new car that Google already has that code written, and it's just commented out with a comment that says something like "emergency middle finger to legislators; enable this section whenever the government gets too big for their britches." Cynically, this is actually good for the tech industry. Everybody knows that the big tech firms have grown entirely too large and now wield levels of influence traditionally reserved for governments and religions, but several years from now when the US government loses a long and expensive antitrust case against Google, or wins a purely symbolic victory that doesn't accomplish anything, it will only serve to empower the tech companies to push even further. The 2020 brain in me sees this as being just like when asshole "Republicans" pass anti-abortion laws that are wildly illegal purely in the hopes of pushing the issue and getting a decision that hurts everybody. Considering that Barr hasn't demonstrated a willingness or interest in doing anything that doesn't explicitly cause harm to the American people, I can't help but see this in the same light as some dickhole governor intentionally passing an abortion law that can't stand up in court.
Hey, now. Snooty bay-area transplants were a substantial portion of my cohort at some point. Both you and goobster are missing the big picture. Here's the bulletpoints: - 70-90% of Google's revenue is ads, depending on how you measure it - Google ads are driven by search - Search is driven by ads - Maps are driven by ads So you can go "lol give them a chance to install Duck Duck Go and the problem is solved lol" but the fact of the matter is, the only advertising worth doing anymore is SEO and everyone knows it. The only place worth doing advertising anymore is Google and everyone knows it. I say this as someone who pays Google $100 a month, someone who pays Yelp $100 a month and someone who used to pay Facebook $100 a month: There's no point in doing any advertising at all if you aren't also arranging your entire business case around Google. And that. Is a monopoly. Look - used to be there were all sorts of tiny papers. They were paid for primarily by ads. Then Google hit, then Craigslist hit, and now all we have are pay-for-play Republican bullshit. If you aren't a shitty Chud PAC there's no reason to even bother with it. On the plus side, they make voting easy. "Do whatever pisses off the local paper." Look - you can't "shop elsewhere than the A&P" when the A&P has driven everyone else out of business, and where the A&P shuts down anyone who attempts to open through unfair competition. That's Google, Amazon and Facebook. Always has been. They've been in violation of anti-trust law for decades. "Good for the tech industry?" I mean yeah, Google and Amazon don't exist without Microsoft being wrapped in an anti-trust case over Netscape for a decade so the point is valid. Microsoft is still here and instead of Netscape we have those choads at Andreesen-Horowitz which gave us a bunch of parasitic, zero value bullshit so... yay tech industry? But the amount of brocoder "they'll never take 'em alive" cheering in this thread for a company that fuckin' censors Tienamen Square results for Xi is frankly appalling. For the record I drive a 911 so I'm not predisposed to running over in traffic. And for the record, I've been hit in traffic three times on a bicycle so... yeah.
I've had a role in two of the antitrust cases. The one between Microsoft and JavaSoft (Sun Microsystems) where I was the fulcrum of the whole thing when it kicked off, and the one between the Federal Government and Microsoft for their browser shenanigans against Netscape, where I was a tech advisor because of my role at NASA. Both cases went on for something like a decade, and both accomplished zilch, practically speaking. Some small software tweaks here and there were made, and one path forward (which was technologically impractical anyway) was closed off to Microsoft. (Who, with the release of Office365 has stepped completely over that thinly-drawn line anyway.) And both cases produced results long after the technologies/methodologies in question had been made obsolete, and the industry had moved on to other methods/tech solutions that were not in the scope of the rulings. The biggest issue is M&As. There are PLENTY of new products being invented, and companies being started, and innovations being made, for there to truly be competition in any tech marketplace. The issue is when the big dogs are allowed to buy the innovators - Microsoft buying Bungie, Google acquiring Nest, Facebook buying Instagram. Every one of these acquisitions made the acquired company and product worse, and made the tech landscape duller and less vibrant. M&As have long been used as a weapon. That's not news. But I feel that tech M&As need to be evaluated by a different standard than the FCC has been using for decades. Something more along the lines of the CFPB set up by Elizabeth Warren. The companies need to make an incontrovertible (not "compelling") case that the acquisition is the best thing for the product AND the public market. (This would also have to take into account security liabilities from too much data sitting in one company's hands.) Then the case needs to be weighed using the company's attestations, as well as independent review by the CFPB and - like patents - by others with a vested interest in finding fault with the merger or acquisition. It should be a LONG and arduous process for the purchaser, and should not be taken on lightly. Announcement of an M&A should make your stock take a hit, rather than immediately spike. With proper scrutiny and consumer protections in place, the existing tech giants could be whittled down and made less monopolistic, while also protecting innovators and spurring a new push in innovations in the US. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk....
While I agree with all your points, mine was different—it’s not that Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon aren’t monopolies. They absolutely are. My point was that there’s nothing that can be done without both new laws and new precedent. I’m on mobile now, so I’ll have to pull up some sources for you later, but the issue is that there’s no case the government can make that will stick, or even have any meaningful effect. In the total absence of any chance of meaningful victory for the government, the DOJ throwing a case like this at a company like Google has long-term negative effects on the rest of us by adding to the pile of precedent that makes it even harder to get a judgement in the future. If I were an utter bastard like Barr, and I wanted a publicity stunt that I knew would strengthen the plutocracy while also giving the appearance to Joe Bob Average American that I’m standing up for consumer protection, this would be high on my list of ideas.
In its response, Amazon said it "accounts for less than 1% of the $25 trillion global retail market and less than 4% of retail in the U.S." Do these numbers qualify as monopolistic? Much turns on how you define the market, and if we suppose that Amazon does not have to compete with physical stores, then we can look at online retail. I can't find any source that says Amazon controls more than half of U.S. online retail. The highest figure, 49.1%, is an estimate of "e-commerce" and may include Amazon's considerable revenue from web services in addition to retail sales. Most sources show Walmart, eBay, Home Depot, Wayfair, Best Buy, Target and Costco providing competition for Amazon. It's not that hard for a shopper to compare prices online. In the past, a monopoly could dominate a local market by selling kerosene at prices lower than anyone else could match (alas, poor customers!), and negotiating deals with local railroads to keep the competition out. Now online businesses have to compete with the whole world. What stops DuckDuckGo from competing with Google? Is Apple a monopoly in smartphones, their honeypot? I don't see it. As for Facebook, someone might argue that it In other words, social networks, unlike instant messaging, require a higher level of "investment" from users. They must not only create a list of "friends" but also spend time and energy providing information about themselves. Alternating between multiple social networking sites entails a greater cost than switching between instant messaging programs. Is the economic "gain" of a single social network great enough to for the market to naturally eliminate all other rivals? Evidence suggests a rosy future for MySpace.it’s not that Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon aren’t monopolies. They absolutely are.
is obviously the largest social network and its value, like any other network, grows as the number of users increases. It also grows as the amount of information it holds increases. (Finding your long-lost friend's page is pointless if it says nothing about them.)
Since you added a line to put sources below, let me take a moment to be a man of my word. First, this one's not a primary source, but does a great job outlining the challenges faced by any regulatory agency trying to bring a case against a big tech firm: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/30/antitrust-amazon-apple-facebook-google/ And second, since I know you're not going to like that first one, here is a wildly detailed explanation of the possible antitrust routes the government can take, and the issues with each, including extremely detailed primary sources and relevant case law: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45910.pdf Page 20 is where it gets into the specific charges that are levied against Google right now. You'll notice that it doesn't say "Google isn't a monopoly", it says that because of technicalities in how the laws are written and how precedent has been set in the last few decades, any prosecutor faces an uphill battle in proving that existing laws and precedent apply in the case of the big technology companies.
These are editorials, not sources. Your first article is a Washington Post columnist arguing that the Feds have chosen not to pursue anti-trust cases because they've been taken over by Milton Friedman's minions. It's basically arguing that new laws are required to compel the justice department to act. What we have here is an example of the justice department acting - for all the wrong reasons, but acting - so it's mooted. Your second is a position paper describing the statistical prevalence of Supreme Court interpretations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Neither of them say "nothing can be done without new laws and new precedent." The first one says "nothing WILL be done without new laws" (but it was done anyway) and the second one says "this is a new precedent."
Yes, the first is obviously an editorial. The second I think is fantastic as a source, and if you're willing to dismiss that outright, then I shudder to think what you would consider to be proof. So humor me--what would you consider to be sufficient evidence to say that a hypothetical future scenario is likely going to be quite difficult?
"difficult" isn't the goalpost we're hitting here. You're justifying "nothing can be done" "there’s no case the government can make that will stick, or even have any meaningful effect" and "long-term negative effects on the rest of us." Go ahead and shudder: you were arguing futility and impossibility and have now triangulated to difficulty all while patting me on the head and condescending to my benighted comprehension of monopoly policy. This is kind of like arguing that blockchain is totally a database, well it's mostly a database, okay it's kind of a database nevermind my point still stands because I want it to. Gentle reminder: you started this conversation by arguing I'd run you over in my car and are finishing it by "shuddering to think" of what evidence I'd take in an argument. To the best of my knowledge I've done nothing to earn your disrespect. I've let it be known that I feel it keenly. Is it going to be difficult to go after 40% of the stock market? Undoubtedly. Is the toadie who cozies up to Bork the guy to do it? Certainly not. But my whole point yesterday is that the states would have to be chumps to join this case and nobody's said shit about that. they've been building their cases for years, probably because something like this is gonna be like storming Omaha Beach. One thing I haven't done is move the goal posts from impossible and pointless to difficult and then act exasperated when my counterpart calls me on it.
You are correct, I am perfectly happy to rephrase my standpoint in the interests of furthering discussion. I haven't moved the goalposts. I do still stand by my assessment that Google will win the hell out of any attempt at reigning in their monopoly power here in the US. I'm honestly sorry that you took is disparagingly. I made a point of not telling you "you're wrong" or "you're an asshole." I don't think that kind of talk helps anything. I've just been trying to present you with the opinions of people who've done research into the subject who feel that the government is behind the eight ball on this one. I would also love to believe that our government is still powerful enough to solve problems and interested in doing so, but I just don't think that's the case. So yeah, there you go--I've presented you with the well-researched and cited opinions of a bunch of other people, and I believe that those opinions back up my assertion that Google is going to win. And yes, your point about the states being stupid to join the case still stands. That's why nobody's said anything about it--you're right about that one. The only thread in this discussion that's been contentious is this one where you're arguing the opposite point, that there totally is a solid case that the government and states can manage to win.
Couple things - I haven't said shit about "winning." At this point both sides are wargaming what settlement terms they'd take and it becomes a negotiation. For the record I think the Justice Dept's move is empty posturing, something Billy Barr is doing so his master will shut up about indicting Hunter Biden or some shit. But I also think Google and Facebook are legitimately frightened by the consequences of a protracted anti-trust battle (I think Amazon lacks the foresight to be frightened, which is to their detriment, because actual consumer harm is hella easier to demonstrate on Amazon). And I don't deserve to be accused of having a "chip on my shoulder." Only reason we're having this discussion is you accused me of fantasizing about vehicular manslaughter. You've been baiting me for two days and all I've done is call you on it. I'm not sure how the guy who says "stop that" is the contentious one, other than observing that once you've taken things ad hominem it's tough to stop. Maybe you didn't mean it when you said it, but you started this discussion with That last bit? I happen to agree with. Said as much. If you read between the lines we're probably 90% in agreement; the issue at hand is how much tooth the feds and states can bite with and how badly the tech firms don't want to get bitten and that's fundamentally unknowable since it's a negotiation with a lot of parties involved. But we're having a real hard time having that discussion because you can't seem to make a point without couching it in some form of I know better than you and/or your opinions don't deserve respect. Heart-to-heart from one smart guy to another? It's real easy being the only smart guy. Ya get lazy tho. And you forget how to talk to people who might actually know more than you. Which is a real problem because they're the ones you can learn from the most. And I'm well aware I'm the bad guy here because I'm always the bad guy because every site needs a villain and the one who stands up instead of slinking off is gonna be a target but listen: I don't pipe up on everything, I pipe up on stuff I think I know something about. The nice thing about Hubski is you can usually assume that opinions and viewpoints come from a remedial place of knowledge at worst. And even if you think I'm the biggest fucking moron on earth, treating me like one is poor rhetorical strategy. To review: you don't think they can win to the point where you'll happily state that anyone who disagrees has no clue what they're talking about. I don't think winning is the point and dispute that the argument is cut'n'dried. This is contentious because you have demonstrated little respect for dissent, even when politely (and impolitely) asked. Kindly consider that the next time we have something to talk about.This one in particular is such an easy win for Google. Absolute worst-case scenario, you end up with future smartphones that work like PCs sold in Europe--you turn it on, and when you create your user account it asks which search provider you want to use, and which browser you want to install. Woooooooo scary...I can't help but see this in the same light as some dickhole governor intentionally passing an abortion law that can't stand up in court.