
Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In - johnny313
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/technology/facebook-ftc-antitrust.html
======
fyoving
Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some
of the reports but a key line here is:

 _" The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have
opened official investigations"_

It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care
about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it
doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to any of these corporations.

This whole thing is terribly misguided, there is a long list of companies and
markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny and these tech companies if they are on
that list then they are at the very bottom of it. The real drag on the economy
are the high prices of healthcare and housing, there is also the case that
ISPs have obvious monopolies and are providing inferior products and services
and the list goes on.

The role of the media here shouldn't be ignored, they coined the term "big
tech" to conjure negative associations and they continuously publish alarmist
coverage about any combination of these firms, they also stand to benefit if
any enforcement action were to occur.

~~~
Meekro
Visa and Mastercard have a pretty effective duopoly, too! Their fees and
chargeback procedures are a drag on the entire economy. Getting banned by them
effectively kills your ability to accept payments, and many legal but
politically unpopular businesses find themselves in the crosshairs.

~~~
mailslot
Can we include Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to the list of monopolistic
anti-competitive financial companies?

~~~
bilbo0s
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we've almost immediately started down
the road that HN user fyoving is cautioning us against. The idea that our
government is going to go after financial firms is a bit fanciful. (In all
honesty, legally speaking, fyoving is even correct in asserting that they
aren't even going after tech firms.)

When you're getting people's hopes up by making them think that something is
going to happen, and then nothing happens. People immediately blame big
banking, big finance, big tech, corrupt politicians, corruption in general,
etc etc. Which is entirely understandable. People get upset at dashed hopes.
They look for something or someone to blame. And to be fair, sometimes it's
even true that corruption is part of the reason.

But this time I have a strong suspicion fyoving is likely correct for a more
systemic reason. Any sort of action against a lot of these companies, tech or
finance, won't pass muster with the courts. It's not corruption, it's just the
law. Which we can change, but it's really hard to do so because there are good
reasons for some of these laws. (One way to address that problem though is to
add new laws instead of changing the current ones, but there is going to be
natural resistance against that too.)

I suspect that's the entire reason a certain segment of politicians are trying
to bring action against the tech giants within the parameters of current law.
Because they _know_ it won't work already. They know how the supremes will
rule on any such actions. (Rulings the supremes won't even have to hand down
because the agencies in question will probably decide against wasting the time
taking any actions in the first place.)

It's terrible. A likely diversion of 10 years minimum, during which no one
will actually be able to gain any traction towards _changing_ the laws because
these elites will be wagging the dog making people think something is going to
happen under current law. We should have pushed for changes in the law first.
Then gone after the big businesses. But that was probably just a pipe dream of
mine anyway. It was never gonna happen.

~~~
refurb
Are you arguing that politicians would spend ten years investigating companies
with the full knowledge they won’t get anywhere with it beyond political
brownie points?

If so, I agree 100%.

~~~
briantakita
I agree < 100% as this is one of many benefits for a politician to take this
stance. Another benefit is leverage over an industry. Leverage is a tool that
can be used for different purposes. Even if the courts thwart one possible
outcome, there are other possible outcomes.

------
WalterBright
In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to
take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM.
Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft.

Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA.

It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will
take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's
Amazon, and Walmart is the underdog.

It's almost as if the theory that monopolies inevitably grow to take over the
world has serious problems :-)

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
For both IBM and Microsoft, I would argue that anti-trust cases at least
contributed to their fall from the top.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/15/business/us-
vsibm.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/15/business/us-vsibm.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).

~~~
panpanna
Don't know about IBM, but in case of Microsoft it was some really horrible
technical decisions and a lot of internal fights that caused their downfall.

Well, maybe downfall is a harsh word for a company still very successful &
profitable...

~~~
JohnFen
IBM is still very successful and profitable as well.

------
chiefalchemist
So the companies that have more or less sprung up out of nowhere are...to
blame for the economic stagnation of the middle class over the last 40 to 50
years?

Pardon the editorial but here we go again, politicians pinning the tail on the
wrong donkey (i.e., spinning root causes out of symptoms and correlation); the
voters will fall for it, and five to ten years down the road we'll all realize
we wasted our time (as the root causes further strengthened their
stranglehold).

------
studentrob
Unsurprising. The government needs to appease the public after killing net
neutrality.

And, now that ISPs don't need to follow net neutrality, the regional broadband
monopolies are free to zero-rate their own video services like AT&T openly
does [1]. Next they can throttle Netflix, charge them a premium, and pass
costs to the consumer without taking any sort of financial hit for doing so.

[1] [https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-
violating-t...](https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-
the-old-net-neutrality-rules/)

~~~
lucasmullens
This seems unrelated. What does this have to do with net neutrality?

~~~
studentrob
Fair question. IMO this is the government trying to appease the public after
they refused to maintain net neutrality, despite overwhelming public support
for the policy. I've edited my comment to make that clear.

~~~
twblalock
I have not heard anyone complain in person about the government killing net
neutrality. The general public is not harboring resentment about it.

~~~
studentrob
You must be joking. It was front page here and r/technology for months before
net neutrality was repealed.

There is no question that public support for net neutrality is broad and
bipartisan. The only question that remains is which 2020 candidates will stand
up to say they support net neutrality.

~~~
bduerst
I think their point is that outside of some online communities (i.e. most
people in the public sphere) there isn't interest or even awareness to net
neutrality.

~~~
studentrob
Oh I see now. Thanks for pointing that out.

I agree it's not a top 5 issue now, but I believe this is our generation's
first amendment torch. We can carry it, or let it go out. To that end, I tend
to ignore anyone who suggests "this isn't important" or has the defeatist view
that "nobody else understands this" because it is our job to share it with
them.

------
bondolo
Disappointed that the telecom media conglomerates aren't getting more
scrutiny.

~~~
studentrob
Agreed. Net neutrality needs to be an election issue in 2020. Red/blue agree.
The most upvoted comment ever removed from t_d was about NN [1] [2].

[1]
[https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&lim...](https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&limit=1&sort=top&show=t1_d5tn1eg)

[2] [https://revddit.com/r/the_donald](https://revddit.com/r/the_donald)

~~~
root_axis
Huh? red & blue definitely don't agree on NN. I know some might point to poll
numbers that suggest a majority of republicans support NN, but its important
to remember that republicans are ideologically opposed to _politicians_ that
support NN. This is similar to how a majority of republicans support universal
background checks for firearms but nobody suggests that "red/blue agree" on
this issue because, despite supporting universal background checks,
republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports
background checks.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically
opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks.

You don’t sound like you know much on this topic.

When the poll question is asked as: “Do you support background checks when
purchasing a firearm to keep criminals from getting guns” the answer is high.

When the question is more appropriately asked as: “Do you support the
government requiring permission via an unrelated third party who has no
obligation to comply before you are allowed exercise your civil rights?”

A lot less support when the real question is asked.

I don’t think that examples helps your argument in this case.

~~~
root_axis
Your proposed wording is disingenuous partisan spin that encodes your own
point of you into the question. Fortunately, even partisan polling
organizations wouldn't waste their time with such a stilted questionnaire.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
The second wording reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal. But...
please feel free to tell me why I’m mistaken.

You can start with why the Federal Firearm License requirements make sense to
only 1/2 deploy to citizens while preventing their access from the NICS system
directly, that a citizen’s rights should be directly tied to a 4473.

Then also please tell me why the compromise of the 1993/4 Brady Bill where
private sales were EXPLICITLY protected in order to get the votes to pass -
were only two years later called a “loophole”.

I look forward to being educated on this topic.

~~~
root_axis
> _reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal_

No, it reflects your stubborn partisan viewpoint which I'm uninterested in
debating.

[https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-
bipartisan...](https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-
support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/8-12-2015-3-56-39-pm/)

The numbers speak for themselves. Unless you have some alternative polling
data to show I am not interested.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>The numbers speak for themselves

Except that’s exactly my point that you can’t argue.

How about in Washington. I-594 required background checks. The NRA spent a lot
of money fighting it - but was outspent by gun control groups over 14:1, 10:1
of that was Michael Bloomberg alone.

You know results when it was actually put to a vote? 60/40.

A far cry from the polling lie that 92% want mandatory background checks on
all sales performed by a dealer for a fee who has no obligation to perform
using a system that has no obligation to be online.

------
bitxbit
I realize this is probably not a popular opinion but Amazon, Google and
Facebook are natural monopolies in the businesses they operate in. That is to
say the optimal market structure in almost all internet businesses is high
concentration with a single organization controlling +80% of market share. So
breaking up these organizations doesn’t necessarily solve the problems we are
facing today. This is not an antitrust issue. Economically speaking, it will
likely be impossible to prove that someone like Amazon behaved in a anti-
competitive manner. Same goes for Google. Facebook is the only one I can see
broken up largely due to all the negative publicity.

~~~
Nasrudith
Those markets are pretty "winner takes most". Not quite sure if I would call
it a monopoly per say as anyone can compete but few can scale close.

I would expect most would agree the network effect serves them well - although
all may fall in the face of a new competitor who actually manages to be
"better" \- especially if they do something stupid.

------
mogadsheu
The potential cases against the large tech firms are all coming in at the same
time. I wonder what could be driving it.

If they move foward, I hope that the nature of the results are good for the
public (i.e. preventing anti-competitive behavior)

~~~
icxa
Government finally had it with the amount of power they have over culture and
messing with their 3 letter agency initiatives?

I am one of those pessimistic folk who views everything on a geopolitical
stage as a power struggle, so..

~~~
Apocryphon
From the left, populist economists calling for Big Tech to be broken up for
monopoly and tax dodging.

From the right, culture warriors calling for regulation so their chosen
avatars of free speech are not de-platformed.

From the bottom, consumer advocates angry at the privacy abuses of large
corporations, not to mention increasingly shoddy quality caused by lack of
competition.

From the top, as you mentioned- tech companies flouting state power, including
in the realm of state surveillance.

十面埋伏 - attack from ten directions.

~~~
not_a_moth
Holy smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free
speech become a "right" thing?

It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech
platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.

~~~
vturner
And the down votes prove your point... Incredible.

~~~
darkwizard42
Or perhaps its just a reminder to the user that free speech does not need to
be extended by private organizations...They have in their TOS to remove
content they do not deem fit in the same way users do not need to use these
services.

~~~
remarkEon
Was it okay for communists to be blacklisted in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s?
I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist.

~~~
maxheadroom
> _I personally don 't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist._

The way this reads to me is: If you were against it, it could _only_ be
because you were a communist. #mcCarthyism

~~~
remarkEon
It’s a reference to a rather famous text from Martin Niemöller, about what
happened in Nazi Germany.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..).

------
wdewind
This is the part where the people who brought us PRISM tell us how the real
problem is facebook and they are the solution. Ok.

~~~
vkou
The FTC and the DOJ brought us PRISM?

------
october_sky
The WP reported that Rep Cicilline said the "Internet is broken". I agree --
because the ISPs broke the internet, and Congress is letting the FCC allow
that. Why aren't they fixing that?

------
cljs-js-eval
I'm glad we're finally taking anti-trust seriously, but this timing is
incredibly suspicious. Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start
taking steps to limit our own?

A good, plausibly deniable soft power attack would be to make an antitrust
case, present it to the feds with the work already done, and let them do their
thing now that they basically have to take action or look foolish.

No malicious actors involved, except for the people who choose to trigger the
audit at the opportune moment.

~~~
JohnFen
> Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start taking steps to limit
> our own?

I don't see this as taking steps to limit our own tech at all.

------
Egraveline
I guess we'll see how this plays out. I would of course like to see anti
competitive behavior be minimized, but how they will go about that I'm not
sure. Even if they are broken up, I doubt we will see much improvement for
lowering the barrier of entry for these industries. I would like to hear what
other users' thoughts are about what to do to prevent anti competitive tactics
without regulating the market too heavily.

~~~
WalterBright
Just recall what happened to Standard Oil. SO's market share continued to
decline throughout the anti-trust trial against them. Rockefeller was unable
to stem the tide of nimbler competitors.

What happens is when companies exceed a certain size, the inefficiencies of
central planning tend to paralyze them and they fail to adapt to changing
circumstances, and go into decline.

------
losteric
And not Comcast, Walmart, AT&T? ... I wonder why

~~~
djflutt3rshy
Gotta give money to the winning team...

Alphabet:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000067823&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000067823&cycle=2018)

Apple:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021754&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021754&cycle=2018)

Amazon:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000023883&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000023883&cycle=2018)

Facebook:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cycle=2018)

\---

Comcast:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000461&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000461&cycle=2018)

Walmart:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000367&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000367&cycle=2018)

AT&T:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000076&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000076&cycle=2018)

~~~
noelsusman
To be clear, it's illegal for corporations to give money directly to federal
candidates. This is a tally of donations from employees of those companies,
which makes this a function of workforce ideological leanings more than
anything else.

------
dannykwells
Surprised to not see Amazon on here, esp. given DJT's hatred of Bezos. But
maybe they're saving the best for last. Certainly would not be surprising
given Amazon's developing vertical monopoly on all things bought and sold.

~~~
devy
Amazon is on the list.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20087732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20087732)

~~~
studentrob
And Netflix is not, probably because Hastings once said net neutrality is no
longer their primary battle. IOW, they will pay to play. Disgusting. The
selections make this a transparent move.

~~~
dralley
Netflix is nowhere even remotely close to being a monopoly.

~~~
studentrob
I agree that Netflix dominating does not make them a monopoly. No more than
Google or Facebook.

~~~
dralley
Netflix is far less critical, and has far less marketshare (as a proportion of
the general population), and far more competitors than either Google or
Facebook.

------
partingshots
When tech companies become collectible trading cards. Clearly this is the best
timeline.

On a more serious note, I hope the government gets to the telecom, oil,
tobacco, military arms, and financial industries too at some point...

------
peterwwillis
This is literally politicians co-opting popular rage to make themselves look
good, and everyone here is stroking themselves because their old tech
fantasies aren't cool anymore (and everyone loves a good car crash).

There are so many horrible companies in the world that are actually anti-
competitive, but _this_ is the force of evil that needs to be dealt with? An
ad company, a consumer products company, a social media company, and an
incorporeal futuristic version of Walmart? The last one is perhaps the most
applicable, the rest are just pointless makers of gadgets nobody actually
needs, like wanting to break up Hasbro.

------
Havoc
Not MS?

They're all kinda up to the same shenanigans really

~~~
manfredo
Does Microsoft really have any monopolies? They have a big OS market share,
but operating systems have become less and less relevant as mobile computing
grows. Same deal with office.

Bing is nowhere near the market share as google. Azure competes with AWS and
others. Xbox competes with Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft store competes with
Steam. IE and edge are also being beaten by Chrome. I think the argument that
Microsoft has a monopoly is much less feasible.

One acquaintance of mine that works at MS humorously remarked on the irony of
situation along these lines, "Back in the day Microsoft was the Big Bad. But
now we're not big in social media, we're not big in advertising or search. All
these other companies are taking the heat now - not for our lack of trying to
get into these spaces, though (laughs)."

~~~
Havoc
>Same deal with office.

Excel? I'm in the finance world and I can say with confidence that they've got
100% market share.

We use google sheet too. Every day even....for tracking everyone's
QuizOfTheDay scores. Great track but not even close to Excel replacement.

~~~
partiallypro
That means Microsoft has a better product, that doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

~~~
Havoc
Better product for sure. But that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly.

>That means Microsoft has a better product, that doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

Actually that's the text book definition of monopoly.

Monopolies are thus characterized by

* a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service - nobody else is making commercial spreadsheet tools

* a lack of viable substitute goods - all the other stuff (google sheets, openoffice) isn't workable in practice

* high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost - a MS office download costs MS near nothing...selling price is still sky-high.

There are crazy network effects at play which create near insurmountable
barriers to entry. Another sure sign of a monopoly vulnerable to monopoly
pricing/profits.

~~~
partiallypro
I've taken plenty of business law classes, and I've never heard such a thing
in terms of what defines a monopoly. Your 1st point is debunked by your second
point. Your 2nd point of "isn't workable in practice" is just bunk. For your
third point, GSuite costs more per seat than O365 in some cases...so I don't
even know what you're talking about.

------
at-fates-hands
Considering FB just handed over a private citizens data to a convicted hacker
simply because he requested it, I would say I'm pretty happy about this
development.

------
IlegCowcat
More regulation just makes it more difficult for smaller companies to comply.
The giants will just expand their legal departments.

------
UglycupRawky
Advertisers, and others, could be paying higher prices due to market
dominance, while users of so-called free services could be experiencing lower
quality offerings with reduced innovation and variety, as well as excessive
data appropriation. These effects, and others, would constitute reduced
consumer welfare.

------
75dvtwin
I would like to see Paypal added to the list. Although, part of this monopoly
is a very high regulatory barrier of entry for Paypal competition. But they
should look if paypal engages into practices 'steer' regulators (or
politicians) to not to allow others in.

I also thought about Ebay monopoly, however we have newEgg and Amazon, and
unless they are setting up barriers for others to entry, or fixing prices, or
coordinating to black-list certain business/consumers -- I doubt that they
will be looked at.

------
otohp
I think this might be because of the right wing of the Republican party that
thinks that Google/Facebook etc are unfairly censoring their point of view.
This action might be designed to cut them down to size.

------
macawfish
Know what else is a drag on the economy? Banks and their high interest loans.

------
Animats
Watch them start sucking up to Trump to make this stop.

~~~
goodfight
Highly unlikely. Rage clicks drive their ad revenue.

------
tigerlily
I can't log out of Facebook on Firefox, FB seems to have bugged the dropdown
containing the log-out button so it loads forever instead of appearing :(

------
thefounder
Rant: But I thought the EU just wants to punish all the good US companies. Now
DOJ and FCC?

------
logicchains
The Chinese government must be slathering at the mouth about this. Assuming
there are some inherent advantages to large tech companies (a collection of
smaller companies can't achieve the same economy of scale as one big one),
then if America breaks up its large tech companies it will be the perfect
opportunity for Chinese ones to fill their place. This would not only expand
China's soft power but also their ability to monitor global information flows.
Given that much recent development in deep learning is also funded by the deep
pockets of monopolistic tech companies, breaking them up (and removing this
surplus profit) would slow down US AI development relative to China.

~~~
logicchains
To the downvoters, I'm curious why you think America weakening its largest
tech companies wouldn't help China? The fact that people are calling for
breaking up large tech companies suggests they have an unfair advantage over
small companies (otherwise they wouldn't need to be broken up), so why
wouldn't large Chinese tech companies have an advantage over small, broken up
American companies?

