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.