The Antitrust Showdown - U.S. Government v. Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, et al.

[Tharthan]

This is the thread to discuss the probe.

Discuss away.

[moonbat]

First things first - it isn't a first amendment issue because that does not apply to private entities who can set their own terms of acceptable speech. They are not also technically monopolies because alternatives do exist for each of the services they provide, and people can and have successfully switched over.

That doesn't preclude the fact that they are the de facto platforms for online discourse despite the availability of alternatives and massively influence popular opinion on different topics. If you want to reach the largest number of people, there is nowhere else but Facebook and Twitter. If you are a small business looking to sell online, Amazon is your best bet to reach the largest number of consumers. And anyone in public relations or marketing knows that having a 'social media strategy' involving Facebook/Instagram/Twitter is no longer optional.

I will place the blame for this situation squarely on the unwashed masses. 10 years ago you couldn't imagine that a handful of companies would end up controlling everything important on the internet, there were lots more communities. Over the years, everyone migrated to doing everything online across these companies, leaving out dedicated platforms like Flickr for photos or Foursquare for location updates. Google has always had a business model based on selling user data to advertisers, yet everyone flocked to Chrome without caring about this when it launched, and they now control the web standards themselves.
Facebook started as another social media platform like Myspace/Hi5/Orkut, then slowly expanded its tentacles to pages, groups, like buttons and comment plugins on websites to full blown tracking everything you do even if you have never used their platform before.

One thing the US govt could have done long ago was to stop using private platforms for official communications and use their own open source setup. Why does Trump have to bloviate on Twitter instead of on a separate Mastodon instance under the government, maybe with a handle like @president@whitehouse.gov or something? People will want to follow him, and this will require them to start using Mastodon as well, which is easily done given the federated nature of the service.

I don't know how this will pan out though. SCOTUS may well strike this down as a 1A violation, and it may set an unpleasant precedent for government interference in the internet

[Moonchild]

Not sure why you're bringing up free speech and the 1st amendment.
The thread and legal probe is about antitrust and anti-competitive practices. Close to home for example the reCAPTCHA discrimination, the fact Google writes most standards after the implementation already present in Chrome, the monopoly on widevine/EME/DRM (and that's not theoretical), the way alternatives are "present but made insignificant" through practices that are are far from fair or on the level, etc.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

If not a monopoly then a coordinated cartel.

[Night Wing]

I do not think any changes will come at all. They big tech companies will say, "we'll look into it" and then continue on "with business as usual".

Some politicians say they would like to break these companies (Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, etc) up. But these companies have "very deep pockets" which means they will influence politicians to sustain the status quo concerning these companies.

Despite the various congressional hearings, collectively speaking, our politicians have as much backbone as a "jellyfish". To be blunt, the threats of "breaking up these companies" is more along the lines of "all bark, no bite".

[Isengrim]

If not a monopoly then a coordinated cartel.

The term I like to use is oligopoly.

[John connor]

I just wanna go back to a time where Carnegie Steel, Rockefeller Oil, Edison, JP Morgan Chase, and perhaps Hershey were in their heyday...

[John connor]

Some politicians say they would like to break these companies (Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, etc) up. But these companies have "very deep pockets" which means they will influence politicians to sustain the status quo concerning these companies.

This is exactly why I think there needs to be a Constitutional convention to add a few amendments.

1) Outlaw lobbying.

2) No more ability to add a rider to a bill.

3) Term limits for the Legislative and Judaical branches.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Will the gentleman time travler in the F22 please take off to places unknown and never return.

[Tharthan]

They are not also technically monopolies because alternatives do exist for each of the services they provide, and people can and have successfully switched over.

De facto monopolies are, in practice, not that much better than literal monopolies.

Their anti-competitive behaviour, efforts, initiatives, and implementations appear to be an attempt to achieve something just shy of a literal monopoly, but not quite one. Just 'not quite' enough that they can skirt the wrath of the courts.

Why does Trump have to bloviate on Twitter instead of on a separate Mastodon instance under the government, maybe with a handle like @president@whitehouse.gov or something?

If I recall correctly, the current president was intending to start up his own personal platforms for stuff, but that didn't seem to go anywhere. I don't know if he was advised against it or what. I really don't care, either.

Point is, though, it's a lot harder to get someone who is a mouse potato or glass-slab potato to suddenly switch over to another platform than someone might think, given how swiftly people forsook independent communities initially and flocked to the social media platforms.

They big tech companies will say, "we'll look into it" and then continue on "with business as usual".

This is not an e-mail to a few tech companies. This is a potential antitrust suit in the making. I would have a little more hope that something might happen.

the threats of "breaking up these companies" is more along the lines of "all bark, no bite".

You never know. It's not as if antitrust lawsuits as a concept are theoretical. We've had them before, and they have been successful before.

Is it likely that we'll get what we've been wanting from this probe? Probably not. But it's not impossible.

They need to get more techie advisors though who aren't Google toadies.

[Tharthan]

1) Outlaw lobbying.

There are legitimate uses for lobbying. Lobbying as a concept isn't all bad, and it hasn't historically been only used for bad things, so I think that that would be an unreasonable amendment.

2) No more ability to add a rider to a bill.

Hmm...

Riders are irksome, but I wonder if that is wise. To even consider that, there would need to be a lengthy discussion over how meritious even the concept of the proposal would actually be.

3) Term limits for the Legislative and Judaical branches.

Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are a two-edged sword, but I personally am in favour of keeping them. It means that a wise old fellow who was appointed thirty years prior could be the deciding vote to block a particularly imprudent effort to legislate from the bench/make a terrible mistake.

You ought to look at it from multiple perspectives there, John connor. It's not just how it's being used now, but how it may be able to be utilised in the future.

I feel similarly about legislative term limits. Sometimes, someone really is just very good and skilled. I don't think that they ought to be punished for that. People aren't trying to elect them president indefinitely or something like that.

[John connor]

Will the gentleman time travler in the F22 please take off to places unknown and never return.

LMAO! What I said completely went over your head now didn't?

I'm not even going to explain why I said it, least your brain slip into a coma, and you shit yourself to the potter's ground. Or if you're lucky find yourself in a straight jacket at the realization of the immense astuteness I present. LMAO! Okay, I kid.

[John connor]

Tharthan:

In a word, no.

Sheriff's Edit: Blatant violation of Rule 3a removed. Do not quote entire previous posts. Especially don't quote the entirety of a previous post when it is clearly of length!

[John connor]

Just read this piece. Very interesting. https://protonmail.com/blog/apple-app-s ... 020_-_july

[Tharthan]

Last week, the European Commission announced, in response to a complaint filed by Spotify, that it would be opening an investigation into Apple’s App Store practices,

I must confess, I don't know much at all about Spotify. I think that it's a service which people can use to stream music. Aside from that, I know absolutely nothing about it.

What bone does Spotify have to pick with Apple's Application Store? I could see them having a bone to pick with iTunes, but... what is it about Apple's Application Store that is specifically hurting Spotify?

and also Spotify’s bravery in bringing this complaint in the first place.

I'm glad that they brought it as well, but I'd be surprised if no one has at least attempted to bring a complaint against Apple on this subject or something similar before.

Following years of advertising itself as a company that puts users first, Apple has increasingly aligned itself with oppressive governments and curtailed digital freedom. There was a time when Apple portrayed itself as a rebellious alternative to giants like Microsoft. Today, Apple has become a monopoly, crushing potential competitors with exploitative fees and conducting censorship on behalf of dictators.

It's quite droll how easily one can replace "Apple" with "Google" in those sentences. How uncomfortably droll.

Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is largely controlled by Google’s Android)

How on Earth did Google manage to overtake Apple in the modern smartphone market; something that Apple essentially created in the first place?

It is not illegal for Apple to own a mall and rent space, nor is it illegal for Apple to own the only mall. What is illegal, is exploiting the fact that it owns the only mall to charge excessively high pricing which harms competitors.

Hmm...

Are "walled gardens" illegal? If they are determined to be illegal, that will certainly be quite the interesting development.

After the European Commission launched its investigation on June 16, Apple released a statement saying “the European Commission is advancing baseless complaints from a handful of companies who simply want a free ride.”

I, for one, am not someone who pays much attention at all to the cries of a company whilst they are being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour. They will say anything and everything that they can think of in an attempt to excuse their bad behaviour.

Even though ProtonVPN had been in the App Store since 2018 and the basic functionality of our VPN has not changed, Apple abruptly rejected the new app version and threatened to remove ProtonVPN entirely. They demanded that we remove this language around anti-censorship on the grounds that freedom of speech is severely limited in some countries. The options are comply or be removed from the App Store.

Wow.

Apple's attitude reminds me of what one of those NBA folks said some time back, about how if one does business globally, one simply must leave one's respect for freedoms behind. An absurd comment and attitude, and yet one that was made and being put forth earnestly.

It appears that that kind of treachery is quite common amongst American businesses these days. For shame!

Apple willingly complies with Chinese laws that restrict users’ access to thousands of apps and that require foreign companies to store the data of its citizens within the country and make them available to authorities. Even Google has gone further to resist such Chinese pressure.

Well, Google appears to have adopted a PRoC approach and attitude to things themselves. So I don't know if they have truly "resisted Chinese pressure".

Despite its own portrayal as a paragon of human rights

Do most people think of Apple as a human rights defender? I certainly never have thought that at any point.

[EMH_Mark_I]

I would certainly like to see something come of it, however the corporate oligopolies have a global reach and are beginning to act as governmental entities themselves. I don't believe they're going anywhere anytime soon.

[Moonchild]

How on Earth did Google manage to overtake Apple in the modern smartphone market; something that Apple essentially created in the first place?

Apple has always positioned itself as a very specific market participant catering to a very specific group of consumers (which happens to be the more well-to-do segment). Apple software on Apple hardware.
Google has simply focused on making their stuff available to as many people as possible on any hardware they could sway. onto Android. Android on any hardware.

[Utnapishtim]

My 2c: I'm happy in spirit but sober in expectations.

It seems that M$ is missing. I'm hoping M$ partnered up with Trump to bust up their competition. In that case I also hope Trump will be smart and powerful enough to make this boomerang back to M$.

[Moonchild]

Let's not twist this yet again into something political.

[Tharthan]

My 2c: I'm happy in spirit but sober in expectations.

Off-topic:
No, your 2c is the same as everyone else's 2c. To wit:

Please don't try to call attention to a different thread on the forum in a thread comment. If you want more attention to a thread, then post in that thread! It will automatically be bumped if it's been long enough since the last post.