Nothing to stop Amazon from running a gigantic marketplace for their own brands. The bill targets middlemen.
EXCEPTION. Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to the operation of an online platform for any person that exclusively sells, advertises, or otherwise promotes the goods and services of the person.
I think the "other purposes" is part of the key here of why a certain Mr Hawley submitted this bill. If you want to bust up big tech, just bust up the big ones.
It only applies to platforms with >1.5B in global revenue, so you have to be reasonably big to be affected by it. I agree with the distrust of Hawley's motivations, though.
Big Tech is fundamentally the result of two things:
1. A favorable regulatory environment for owning everything (e.g. lax antitrust, little to no ownership restrictions, open international markets)
2. A favorable creators' monopolies regime so that everything can be owned (e.g. absurdly-long copyright terms, patents that cover round rects, etc)
The first term makes it possible to buy everything under the sun and the latter makes it advantageous to do so. We've already seen this in media; but Congress likes the idea of having Disney be the cultural imperialism arm of the US Government. Congress also liked the idea of Big Tech being it's propaganda arm for a while, too; until they realized that Big Tech wasn't going to play ball in the same way Hollywood does.
> The first term makes it possible to buy everything under the sun and the latter makes it advantageous to do so. We've already seen this in media; but Congress likes the idea of having Disney be the cultural imperialism arm of the US Government. Congress also liked the idea of Big Tech being it's propaganda arm for a while, too; until they realized that Big Tech wasn't going to play ball in the same way Hollywood does.
All these are good things for USA. USA burning its tech sector might be good for EU but not good for Americans.
When a political party in a member state wants to support something unpopular, they push for it behind closed doors with other member states in the EU. Then the politician blames the EU for being too bureaucratic or something to throw the blame off themselves.
The UK leaving the EU was not a reasoned act of statecraft; it was Tories trying to solve their own political problems by proposing a referendum they expected to fail. When it turned out to win by a hair, everyone involved immediately jumped ship. The thing is, all of the red tape and bureaucracy are things that citizens complain about. Politicians are the ones imposing it and the EU is just the rubber stamp they use.
But right now I know of people who are burning the midnight oil due to all the red tape introduced by Brexit.
Empirically, it turns out the EU might actually have been an engine for the reduction of red tape all along. :-/
Just because some people are in the EU parliament via a democratic vote does not mean they are accountable to anyone.
Least of all, you know, voters.
You have clearly got a number of hobby horses you want to flog. But the thing with people who flog horses is, they often do not realise they are already dead.
This is a race to bottom where US is finally competing with Europe.
It's not zero sum. Amazon creates value out of thin air.
Huh? That doesn't seem to make sense.
The goal here seems to be to run up a ton of forced divestures in a “here’s what I want you to do, you figure out how to do it” way.
Here’s the PR statement out of Senator Hawley’s office, for the summary.
> means a person that is in the business of offering an online platform to connect third parties to an online marketplace, exchange, or search engine which
…followed by some stipulations on users and revenue. So as I understand it, Amazon/Google/Microsoft would have to spin off AWS/GCP/Azure, etc.
A person that is in the business of offering an online platform to connect third parties to an online marketplace, exchange, or search engine may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by the covered person.
I don't know how you offer an online platform without providing back-end online services.
"A covered person may 15not provide online hosting services or back-end 16online services to any other entity that is not 17owned by the covered person"
> Example: Amazon cannot continue to operate an overwhelmingly dominant retail business and simultaneously own an enormous share of the cloud computing technology upon which the internet itself is built.
Is there any evidence that Amazon actually leverages this? Or is able to leverage it?
Amazon regularly accesses their own platform's sales data to determine how to make competing products.
I would not be surprised if this was the game everywhere else, though. Remember: physical retail invented a lot of the scummy business tactics we complain about with Amazon.
If you control your competitors infrastructure, you have a unique power position and the ability to shut off hosting at any moment.
Sure the tenant could fight in court but by that time their business is dead.
I agree though, it's a mess to follow this. It takes effort to make a seven page bill so convoluted. It's the spaghetti code of law.
> A covered person may not sell, advertise, or otherwise promote goods and services of the covered person on an online platform owned or operated by the covered company.
Are they actually the same thing? Companies can be persons, just not natural persons.
One is a clear first amendment violation, the other bans cloud hosting offerings like AWS, GCP, and Azure.