
Google, Facebook, Amazon May Be ‘Antitrust Situation’ - petethomas
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-under-fire-again-on-search-as-hatch-calls-for-ftc-probe
======
mortenjorck
Times the word “monopoly” appears in this comment thread (so far): 26

Times the word “monopoly” appears in the article: 0

It’s worth repeating: The Sherman Antitrust Act does not apply only to actors
in monopoly positions. Antitrust actions may be taken against businesses
engaging in anticompetitive behavior or otherwise restraining trade, even if
they don’t control the entire market.

~~~
nickik
False. Modern anti-trust law requires proving harm to consers and that would
be incredibly hard with any of those companies.

~~~
singularity2001
Modern anti-trust law -> Current anti-trust law

modern has annotations of beneficial progress

~~~
Detry322
annotations -> connotations

If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.

------
throwaway_trust
All of them are too big and we need someone like Teddy Roosevelt going on
trust busting crusade. This is the second position of POTUS that I agree with
(first being merit based immigration, as I'm myself an immigrant). In a weird
sense, I think POTUS may achieve it as he is all about anti-establishment.

Now why do I think they deserve Sherman Antitrust investigations (and IANAL).

All of them have control over people's different dimensions of data that
nobody has.

\- Amazon: With acquisition of Whole Foods they control retail like nobody.
Yes, Walmart is trying to make a dent. So does best buy. But they have pretty
much monopoly over e-books business when it comes to publishing. Apple already
had eBooks settlement.

\- Google: They make or break Internet with control over gateway (Chrome),
Search (gatekeeper, and promoting their own content) and monetization (Google
Doubleclick/Adx is majority of share in ad-tech market for on-walled garden s,
good luck competing against it). Given their control and 1B users across
multiple platforms they constantly engage in anti-competitive behavior. Read
about rise of header bidding and how AdX used to anti-competitive in ad-tech.
Google's ad-tech division needs to thoroughly investigated over anti-
competitive behavior.

Secondly, Android is free but Google has iron grip over Android using play
store. I think gated App Stores are inherently anti-competitive and not in
best interests of users and developers. OS should allow multiple app stores
and DoJ should go after this. Fortnite already tried to highlight this issue.

Facebook - I think Facebook might be spared as for social they are not the
only platform. But given their data scandals

Apple - As I said app stores are inherently anti-competitive. Same thing
applies here like Android.

Anyway, these companies can make or break business with their anti-competitive
practices. As discussed in another comment, Sherman Antitrust Act doesn't
apply in monopoly positions but against businesses that may stifle overall
competitive behavior. I strongly believe these companies are even more scarier
in telcos as they are wolves in sheep's clothing and always try to play nice.

~~~
kart23
Just wondering, how is immigration not merit based right now?

~~~
majos
From last week's issue of The Economist [1]:

"Of the 1m green cards (permanent residence visas) issued [in the US] each
year, only 15% are granted because of the applicants' skills, notes John
Dearie of Startups USA, a pressure group; in Australia the figure is 68%."

[1] [https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/25/governments-
ne...](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/25/governments-need-better-
ways-to-manage-migration)

~~~
sharkmerry
Thats just green cards though it seems. doesnt mention H1B's, etc

~~~
mjevans
I would rather have 0 H1Bs and all those numbers converted straight to green
cards so that immigrants were able to join unions and otherwise compete
without fear of being sent to some other country just because they had even a
minor disagreement with their current employer.

------
mjevans
While I agree that completely dominating a given platform is probably concern
for anti-trust investigation and/or heavy regulations to ensure //regulated
access// to that platform, I actually disagree that Google is a monopoly.

Microsoft is still pushing Bing, and I think Yahoo exists; and both of those
providers also provide free email services (some under different brand names).

Apple competes on entire phone platforms, and Android as an operating system
for phones is provided free to enable a market place across several different
manufacturer's devices; that is likely what's saving //Apple// as a monopoly
for mobiles.

Amazon for shopping... the Whole Foods horizontal integration may be
problematic. I think it depends on how different platforms and services are
broken up. It would probably be OK with the correct kind of regulation to
ensure that it isn't used as an unfair competitive advantage. In that respect
I think Walmart might also have issues.

What I think might improve things is more consumer protections, particularly
in the form of requiring reasonable cost access to paid support (even for
products that are otherwise free). We've heard of users being locked out of
their contact address and account data far too often, even for paying or
previously paying users.

~~~
solarkraft
Ecosystems, man. Possibly way higher barriers to entry for new players than
before.

Google partly defeated Microsoft's phone platform just by keeping their
services away from it. It's difficult to imagine any less powerful player
having any chance.

Think of modern consumer applications and how much they depend on technology
from Google, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft.

They can at many points enforce incompatibility for business reasons. That
should probably be disallowed (car makers couldn't really prevent after market
companies from producing compatible parts).

~~~
ams6110
Microsoft defeated their own phone platform by not having proper developer
incentives/support.

~~~
Analemma_
Google's actions were still anticompetitive even if Microsoft's effort
would've fallen apart on its own.

~~~
nickik
So if I create ShitPhoneTM you think google should be forced to develop apps
for my phone?

If they dod not restrict web access then what they did is perfectly fine.

------
ilaksh
What I think will happen is that we will see a different type of
decentralization become popular. Common platforms are needed or convenient.
Right now these platforms are generally controlled by large companies with
something approaching monopolies in various markets. For example, Amazon
provides services and a destination that help people sell things. The problem
is Amazon is a company that also sells things and is trying to maximize
profits. So vendors are competing with the company running their vending
platform. Uber provides a platform for people to make money with their cars
and to get around. It has the large network that drivers and riders need. But
they are also so dominant that there is very little competition and so they
can price things unfairly.

My belief is that A) we do need common platforms but B) the monopoly platforms
are unfair and C) decentralized technologies can provide common platforms that
aren't controlled by monopolies.

So what I think would make sense would be for drivers or even self-driving car
companies to use decentralized protocols to make one large network and
platform. That platform is open source and decentralized and used by many
competing companies that want to provide transportation services. This allows
companies access to a large pool of drivers and riders and a core technology
implementation, but does not relinquish control to one company, so we can
preserve competition and fairness.

------
noobermin
People are right to be wary of the very monopolistic nature of the web today.
Unfortunately, the powers that be are lead by someone who neither understands
the law nor is motivated by honest reasons and isn't wise enough to hide it.

~~~
_louisr_
Did George Bush or Obama understand in great detail the consequences and
intended usage of every law they make a decision about?

~~~
richardknop
Not sure why this is getting downvotes. Gave you +1. I think there hasn’t been
a president yet who has at least rudimental understanding of tech and
internet. We should be electing more leaders from tech or engineering
background into governing positions otherwise people who have no idea how
internet works will be making decisions about how to regulate it.

------
hugh4life
I'm not a big fan of where the tech giants have brought the internet... the
internet today has become too much of a walled garden and there is not enough
competition and there's not enough cooperation between entities. But we live
in a rather chaotic time geopolitically and I think it's good to have these
gigantic entities in our country that other countries are wary of crossing too
much.

~~~
hugh4life
One thing the tech giants could do is collude to compete greater with one
another... there are too many advantages to the dominance in an market segment
and so they don't bother competing with one another. Google+ was a bit half-
assed... and it seems like they don't care to compete in social networking
anymore. Facebook is doing something with video but it doesn't compare with
youtube. I would like to see google attempt to create a social network
comparable with facebook and I'd like to see facebook attempt to create a
search engine or video sharing service comparable to google or youtube.

Rather than break them up, force them to compete with each other in each
other's dominant market. And then if we get a super giant then break it up.

~~~
ravenstine
> I would like to see google attempt to create a social network comparable
> with facebook and I'd like to see facebook attempt to create a search engine
> or video sharing service comparable to google or youtube.

Forgive me but... how is that better than getting companies to spin off
divisions or to simply not do anticompetitive things? Google is _marginally_
better than Facebook, and what you're suggesting seems to be a switcharoo
between two turd sandwiches where effectively nothing changes. Facebook could
compete in the video space(god help us), but that doesn't mean we're going to
get better video services.

------
ArtWomb
While I think it's a topic worthy of informed debate. Looking at EU's
antitrust decision against Google, the requirements to include competitors
listings in results does not seem to have made much difference. Yelp's revenue
streams are orthogonal and complementary to say, the results via local
searches in Google Maps. Information is not a zero-sum game.

Much more urgent would be antitrust inquiry into consumer credit systems.
Mortgage applicants are at the mercy of an opaque, antiquated credit score
apparatus. While a majority of small businesses, professional services, and
merchants prefer to be paid in check or cash in the US. For large
transactions, this is a headwind against efficient commerce. The fee structure
is simply too dashed high.

FICO’s Lock on Mortgage Credit Scores Comes Under Fire

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/ficos-lock-on-mortgage-
credit-s...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ficos-lock-on-mortgage-credit-
scores-comes-under-fire-1521019801)

------
IronWolve
Google did lose 2 EU lawsuits, 2.4B for search manipulation and 5 billion for
android antitrust.

It's not an opinion about Google has tweaked its search, just the scope.

We just don't know how big or small google search altering goes. They already
proved during the 2016 US elections Google removed negative searches for
Democrats. Would really be helpful if someone collected all the google search
manipulations. Google at least lets you know if something is removed if its
torrent link.

I've run into multiple Youtube search issues where I know a video exists, but
can't find it easily or at all. Normally its just a dozen pages down. Even
with exact titles searches, it can sometimes be extremely difficult.

~~~
crazynick4
> Google did lose 2 EU lawsuits, 2.4B for search manipulation and 5 billion
> for android antitrust. > It's not an opinion about Google has tweaked its
> search, just the scope.

I think this is an example of Trump saying the right things for the wrong
reason. If you just remove the 'because they don't like me' from his rhetoric,
there could be a valid argument there.

~~~
IronWolve
True, I don't think it has been proven that search results against Trump are
modified. So Google could absolutely be telling the truth that they don't
modify search results about him. But Google does modify its searches, we just
don't know to the extent, besides the lawsuits verdicts.

That was my point, you can't say they don't modify search results as a blanket
statement.

~~~
diegoperini
I remember someone claiming a few years ago that if you type Egypt or Middle
East in different parts of the world, you are shown different results. Some
vacation related, some politics related. Unfortunately I can't find it.

~~~
SerLava
That one was about personalization. If you're a political junkie, it'll tell
you how many people died in a riot.

If you're not, it'll tell you about the Pyramids.

------
mjevans
Facebook probably is a monopoly and should have an anti-trust investigation.
Mostly for the issue of: if I asked a random person on the street what
alternatives existed for Facebook I fully expect that less than 5% would even
be able to name a still functioning platform that they had considered using
recently. Maybe if you count 'linkedin' as well (though that's supposed to be
a different type of platform) or dating sites...

Anyway, I dislike how everyone's forgotten how to actually communicate and
stay in touch and just assumes that everything and everyone exists on Facebook
(as one of the GTAs spoofed: "Life Invader").

~~~
ucaetano
> Facebook probably is a monopoly

A monopoly of...?

They key part of a "monopoly" claim is defining the market. Facebook has a
monopoly communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on online communications?
No. Does it have a monopoly on mobile communications? No.

Does it have a monopoly on social interactions? No. Does it have a monopoly on
online social interactions? No. Does it have a monopoly on social networks?
No. Does it have a monopoly on online social networks? No.

Does it have a monopoly on ads? No. Does it have a monopoly on online ads? No.
Does it have a monopoly on online ads in social networks? No.

Does Facebook have a monopoly on serving ads in an online social network that
is blue-themed? No.

Does Facebook has a monopoly on a on serving ads in an online social network
that is blue-themed and has a feed? Not even that!

Does Facebook has a monopoly on a on serving ads in an online social network
that is blue-themed and has a feed and is owned by a Harvard dropout? Yes.

That is the complication of a monopoly claim, you need to define the market.
If you define it too narrowly, you'll always have a monopoly. If you define it
too broadly, you'll never have a monopoly.

~~~
buboard
does it have a monopoly on people's online time and attention? Yes.

~~~
ucaetano
Nope. But hey, I'm happy to change my opinion if you present data.

~~~
buboard
i dont know if it counts as monopoly, however you defined monopoly rather
abstractly. Monopoly is defined by choice and not by the definition of the
market. In terms of e.g. network lock-in facebook doesnt have an alternative.
There was competition at a time , but then every alternative 'real name'
network gave up. Where else would you publish the kind of personal stuff that
people post on facebook. where else would you learn about your friends?

~~~
ucaetano
> Monopoly is defined by choice and not by the definition of the market.

No, monopoly absolutely depends on the definition of the market. If you define
the market as "online human communication" Facebook doesn't have a monopoly.
If you define the market as "online human communication with a feed that uses
shades of blue and is owned by a Harvard dropout" then facebook has a
monopoly.

> In terms of e.g. network lock-in facebook doesnt have an alternative.

Sure it does. You can talk to people, call people, send a letter, post a
notice on a bulletin board, use an online forum, send an email, use an email
group, post it on Google+ (it still exists), send a snap, dm on twitter, post
on twitter, post on Hacker News, etc.

It entirely depends on how you define the market.

~~~
mjevans
I think I did an adequate job in defining a definition above.

Ask a representative sample of 'random' people

    
    
        * For an alternative
        * That still exists
        * That they actually considered using within the last year
    

Facebook fails this test because they have literally no competition within the
same niche* (that the average person, on average, is aware of anyway).

Twitter as a specialized platform is in somewhat a similar area, however
people can just group chat on several other platforms and if you re-framed the
question like this people could probably come up with things they would or
already use as an alternative.

"If [THING] suddenly went out of business, what would you use instead?"

~~~
ucaetano
I Facebook went out of business, people would instead message more on other
messaging platforms, text people more, read news in other news platforms and
so on.

There are plenty of opportunities for all of those options.

Consider, for example, the Cola soda market. There are countries in which
Coca-Cola holds 95% or more of the market share for Colas, or even for sodas.

Does that make it a monopoly? No. Because Colas are just one type of soda
drinks, and soda drinks are just one type of drink.

If Coca-Cola disappeared and there was no other Cola drink available, Cola
drinkers would drink a lemon-flavored drink, or fruit juice, or just plain
water.

So your definition doesn't work, exactly because you didn't define the market.

And hey, this isn't just my opinion, it is how monopoly is defined in
economics. Particularly regarding something that we haven't talked about yet,
which is monopoly pricing. There is no monopoly pricing in any market that
Facebook operates. Quite the opposite, actually, ad prices have been going
down continuously.

It is always interesting to see people in HN trying to recreate economics from
first principles.

------
bdcravens
Should probably include the full title: "Trump Says Google, Facebook, Amazon
May Be ‘Antitrust Situation’"

The article is mostly about POTUS's statement and opinion, not a detailed view
of whether there are antitrust violations.

------
jondubois
As much as people dislike Trump, it's nice that the US has a president who is
not afraid to stand up to big corporations. Just drawing attention to this
oligopoly is a good step in the right direction.

~~~
solarkraft
Screaming at somebody who wasn't nice to you one day (and taking their money
turn things further in their favor) isn't exactly standing up to them.

------
nickik
Non of these companies can be sued in terms of anti-trust because since the
new definition of that law by Richard Posner its very hard to come up with a
story tjat would make it credible.

------
ghostly_s
_' Trump says'_ are the most important words of the headline, why were they
removed?

~~~
s73v3r_
Probably because that would cause the comment section to become a huge
flamewar.

~~~
MBCook
The problem is that that IS the article. This isn’t the justice department or
group of bipartisan senators or someone like that saying they think there’s a
big problem here.

This is 100% “Trump says X“. That’s the only reason this is an article,
literally because he said it.

So to remove that from the headline seems very disingenuous.

(Yes, others have suggested the monopoly/abuse of power angle before, but
that’s not why we’re discussing it today).

------
payne92
One of my most downvoted HN comments was on an article where Zuckerberg
struggled to name a Facebook computer.

I said: “Facebook‘s biggest competitor is the US government.”

I feel that’s even more true now, and the same comment applies to Google and
Amazon. It’s not a coincidence these firms have massive lobbying efforts.

------
anoncoward111
Imagine being so good at delivering value to both users and advertisers that
even the President of the United States is jealous of the amount of money you
make for his own country and wants to spitefully end all that.

Sent from my $100 Android phone bought off Amazon through Google Chrome after
my friend told me about it on Whatsapp.

Alex Jones never delivered that type of value to me and you are free to listen
to his content on his website, which I do from time to time.

~~~
krapp
Trump isn't jealous of these companies because of the money they make, he's a
billionaire himself and probably owns more stock in them than you or I could
afford. He believes they're part of a liberal conspiracy to silence him and is
using antitrust as a pretense to threaten them.

~~~
anoncoward111
That is absolutely correct, but you would probably agree that he also wishes
to use his political power to bring that revenue stream to an entity or group
of entities that are alligned to him in some way. He wouldn't just destroy
that revenue stream and let someone else swallow it up.

I'm not joking, don't be surprised if some consortium of right-wing businesses
start getting subcontracting rights over this stufff

~~~
krapp
>but you would probably agree that he also wishes to use his political power
to bring that revenue stream to an entity or group of entities that are
alligned to him in some way

Oh, definitely. That's the one thing I trust him to be competent at.

~~~
anoncoward111
The classic Trumpian move-- destroy value for others in exchange for personal
financial gain, logic be damned.

------
justcorrect
In the 90's, Democrats wanted to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" in response to
Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's rise in popularity on talk radio. The
Fairness Doctrine was in place at the FCC for parts of five decades, from 1949
to 1987. It will be interesting to see if interest is raised in reapplying a
Fairness Doctrine today towards these companies, which may well need to be
reclassified in some instances as communication utilities to be regulated. I
personally think this is more likely for Facebook and Twitter than Google, but
who knows. Another bigger situation could come into play if the infrastructure
providers (AWS, Azure) start causing antitrust problems, but thankfully they
do not seem to be a big issue yet.

