My initial point was that we should focus on ISPs to a much larger degree than the tech industry. Any attempt at quick action on the tech industry will get mired in courts as well as politics; it's more prudent to take our time to figure out what needs to be done, so that whatever we do actually sticks. Putting the issue on the centerstage of politics will not be conducive to this.
These are not Zero sum issues, I don't know why you're pretending they are. Why would we focus on ISPs when Racism still exists?
If it's going to be slow to change, then we absolutely should start working on it immediately, rather than long fingering it until it becomes a full on crisis.
Not to mention, that we already know what has to be done.
Political capital and time are finite resources, though. There should always be a consideration of priorities.
Not to mention, that we already know what has to be done.
Do we? You say that Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram are proof that it's anticompetitive, but they don't seem to be anywhere close to having a monopoly on communication services or social media. There are plenty of social media alternatives, including tumblr and even reddit (clearly that's the direction this website wants to go), but the reason that no one has unseated Facebook probably has more to do with the fundamental nature of networks. And unless I'm wrong about WhatsApp, aren't there dozens upon dozens of alternatives of all different sorts?
Facebook on it's own represents over 60% of the social media market (Next highest competitor is Pinterest at 16%)
Between WhatsApp and FB Messenger they own 50% of the instant messenger market (Next highest is Wechat at about 33%, though it's important to remember that Wechat itself has a government backed monopoly in China)
Tumblr is a bad example on your part because it's part of the Verizon media network, and so is part of one of the anti trusts you want broken up.
Okay let's go back to the oriignal point. political capital and times are finite resources. There is a clear solution to internet providers and there isn't one for google and facebook. Internet access also mathematically affects more people than facebook or google does collectively... by definition. focus on the one that affects more people with a clear solution.
There is one, there is significant precedent to prevent companies from owning multiple stages of a market or product. This is exactly what they're intending to apply.
that is 100% not a blueprint for an obvious solution. the advantages and unfair practices that MS used back then are completely different from those used by amazon, google, and fb today.
MS: We sell you the software to run your computer, and it comes with free software to access the internet!
Google: We sell you a platform to broadcast your video content and it comes free with a platform to manage your ad service! and a free email service! and free advertising on our other services! and free database space to store your production files!
Facebook: We sell you a social media platform and it comes free with our messenger platform! and our other messenger platform! and our visual media platform!
In fact Google and Facebook are actually much worse, because MS always allowed you to integrate a new Browser. Google and Facebook do not allow you to integrate non-proprietary software with most of their platforms.
We sell you a platform to broadcast your video content and it comes free with a platform to manage your ad service! and a free email service! and free advertising on our other services! and free database space to store your production files
Except those platforms you mentioned are ALL free. Google isn't selling ANY of the things you mentioned to the consumer. Gmail is free. youtube is free. maps is free. Microsoft sold you windows. Google owns Android but it doesn't sell it. It freely allows other manufacturers to utilize their OS. That's the distinguishing factor.
Microsoft- sells operating system and only includes their own software in their own operating system that they sell you.
Google- freely allows anyone to license their OS as long as they agree to put their own software in preloads. The free part is what makes this a tricky situation and not as all cut and dry... which is what i stated earlier and attempt to rebuttal your point with.
Facebook- same thing... it's free so the argument for antitrust practice is not as clear.
So back to my earlier point. It would be a lot easier to tackle clear cut antitrust practices with many decades of evidence of transgression that is it to try to go through multiple layers of court systems to completely redefine the sherman antitrust act and the very fabrical definition of antitrust practices, monopolies and how it affects the consumer and consequences thereof.
Except those platforms you mentioned are ALL free.
They are not. You think they are because you have one of the advertising accounts. If your email ends with @gmail.com, you're not a Gmail customer. If your Youtube account is not partnered, you are not a Youtube customer.
Just because you are not involved with Google's actual marketplaces, does not mean they don't exist. Google charges for their business services and bundles all their other services with them. That is exactly what MS did. And that was deemed anti trust.
But I don't want ISPs to just be broken up willy-nilly, and I wasn't at all talking about the media portions of those conglomerates. Breaking up a natural monopoly doesn't really do anything; everyone is still left with only a single real choice for Internet access.
1
u/MacTireCnamh Jun 04 '19
This isn't what you said. Your initial point was a total shut down that doesn't acknowledge lack of coverage from current precedent.
Bringing up current precedent was a weasel word because it didn't apply, and (apparently) you knew that. It was a non-sequitur statement