Should Facebook and Google be regulated like utilities?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/

[Beet]

Sure, they're obviously monopolistic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No. Rather consumers who disapprove of their business practices should vote with their feet and seek out competitors to use instead. These businesses are monopolistic in nature mainly because they have attained huge shares of the market. It is an open question whether they can retain those shares.

[Beet]

     No. Rather consumers who disapprove of their business practices should vote with their feet and seek out competitors to use instead. These businesses are monopolistic in nature mainly because they have attained huge shares of the market. It is an open question whether they can retain those shares.

Lol. Why would I join a social network that none of my friends are on? Why would I sign up to some no-name search engine without the scale of Google? It's a clear case of existing market share => the basis for even more market share.

[Santander]

Not necessarily, but we do need to reconsider how we think of monopolies and business regulations when ubiquity itself is increasingly becoming a product.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Sure, they're obviously monopolistic.

[Sumner 1868]

Sure, they're obviously monopolistic.

[dead0man]

There are other search engines that work just fine.  And FB is even less ubiquitous, especially with the kids.


Though I agree, if you want to kill them, getting the govt involved in regulating them will do the job quicker than bad PR.  Of course in 10 years you'll just be bitching about whatever replaces them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No. Rather consumers who disapprove of their business practices should vote with their feet and seek out competitors to use instead. These businesses are monopolistic in nature mainly because they have attained huge shares of the market. It is an open question whether they can retain those shares.

Lol. Why would I join a social network that none of my friends are on? Why would I sign up to some no-name search engine without the scale of Google? It's a clear case of existing market share => the basis for even more market share.

     The social network thing is more of a compelling point, though if you actually want to interact with friends then 99% of activity on Facebook is just dreary and pointless pablum. I've been on there once in the last month and a half and have lost nothing for lack of using it.

     Google doesn't impress me as a search engine. I have increasingly been using various other search engines and they are perfectly good for the task. Google benefits greatly from the fact that it has become a generic name for a product (much like Xerox or Kleenex), along with a use format that routes people to their specific product by just plugging in that generic name.

[Santander]

Google doesn't impress me as a search engine. I have increasingly been using various other search engines and they are perfectly good for the task. Google benefits greatly from the fact that it has become a generic name for a product (much like Xerox or Kleenex), along with a use format that routes people to their specific product by just plugging in that generic name.

Google used to merely be a leading search engine, but nowadays, we don't type in URLs anymore to browse the Web, we search for stuff. The URL bar of every major web browser is a search bar by default, and Google is further strengthened through bundling and vertical integration through YouTube, Android, Chrome OS, etc. that put it in a position to control the information we consume. This makes it a far more dangerous monopoly threat than social networks.

[Beet]

     No. Rather consumers who disapprove of their business practices should vote with their feet and seek out competitors to use instead. These businesses are monopolistic in nature mainly because they have attained huge shares of the market. It is an open question whether they can retain those shares.

Lol. Why would I join a social network that none of my friends are on? Why would I sign up to some no-name search engine without the scale of Google? It's a clear case of existing market share => the basis for even more market share.

     The social network thing is more of a compelling point, though if you actually want to interact with friends then 99% of activity on Facebook is just dreary and pointless pablum. I've been on there once in the last month and a half and have lost nothing for lack of using it.

     Google doesn't impress me as a search engine. I have increasingly been using various other search engines and they are perfectly good for the task. Google benefits greatly from the fact that it has become a generic name for a product (much like Xerox or Kleenex), along with a use format that routes people to their specific product by just plugging in that generic name.

So your counterargument is, yes Facebook is a monopoly, but I don't like it? ... Therefore... ? Come on. You can do better than that.

As for Google, it's only less obviously a monopoly, but the idea that competition is just "a click away" is disingenuous. Google's control of search means that it can knock competing websites and other content that could be detrimental to it down in search results. Its massive store of data means it has the information on user behavior that no other search company can compete with. And both the EU and the FTC have investigated it and found it to be a monopoly. The EU actually took some action, whereas the FTC buried its report until it was leaked some years later.

[vanguard96]

No. There are alternatives.

And it calls to question who is the final arbiter. Unfortunately Europeans are getting antsy and statist about it - moralist 'humanitarian' liberals and nanny state/security conservatives here are soon to follow.

[MasterJedi]

They're monopolistic because they're good at what they do. Utility companies are monopolistic due to paying off legislators to not allow actual competition.

[Sirius_]

The internet and ISPs should definitely be regulated like utilities, as ISPs are oligopolies and are constantly screwing over customers. Websites, however, should not be regulated this way. They are not utilities. We should protect people's information but that's about it as far as websites go.  

[Blue3]

They're free. What's the need?

[dead0man]

They're free. What's the need?

authoritarians wants the govt to control everything

[TheLeftwardTide]

Sure, they're obviously monopolistic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No. Rather consumers who disapprove of their business practices should vote with their feet and seek out competitors to use instead. These businesses are monopolistic in nature mainly because they have attained huge shares of the market. It is an open question whether they can retain those shares.

Lol. Why would I join a social network that none of my friends are on? Why would I sign up to some no-name search engine without the scale of Google? It's a clear case of existing market share => the basis for even more market share.

     The social network thing is more of a compelling point, though if you actually want to interact with friends then 99% of activity on Facebook is just dreary and pointless pablum. I've been on there once in the last month and a half and have lost nothing for lack of using it.

     Google doesn't impress me as a search engine. I have increasingly been using various other search engines and they are perfectly good for the task. Google benefits greatly from the fact that it has become a generic name for a product (much like Xerox or Kleenex), along with a use format that routes people to their specific product by just plugging in that generic name.

So your counterargument is, yes Facebook is a monopoly, but I don't like it? ... Therefore... ? Come on. You can do better than that.

As for Google, it's only less obviously a monopoly, but the idea that competition is just "a click away" is disingenuous. Google's control of search means that it can knock competing websites and other content that could be detrimental to it down in search results. Its massive store of data means it has the information on user behavior that no other search company can compete with. And both the EU and the FTC have investigated it and found it to be a monopoly. The EU actually took some action, whereas the FTC buried its report until it was leaked some years later.

     If it's found to be a monopoly, then there exists means to break monopolies. Utilities are allowed to exist as monopolies because the physical infrastructure necessary for the delivery of services makes supporting multiple services highly impractical. I don't know enough about the structure of Facebook to speak to that, but considering how many different services Google encompasses it would be fairly easy to break up its monopoly, as AT&T was broken up in the early 1980s.

[Wakie77]

Neither are monopolies.  There are numerous social network sites.  What pushed Facebook ahead of the others was the partnership with Apple which put it on the iPhone.  As for Google, there was a time when Yahoo was the dominant search engine.  There are other search engines out there, but isn't a monopoly.

[America Needs R'hllor]

There are other search engines that work just fine.  And FB is even less ubiquitous, especially with the kids.


Though I agree, if you want to kill them, getting the govt involved in regulating them will do the job quicker than bad PR.  Of course in 10 years you'll just be bitching about whatever replaces them.

This. They're not monopolies because the internet is free and you can create competition easily. They're just good and successful enough to earn popularity, so instead of trampling success we should encourage others to seek the same success and try to compete.

[publicunofficial]

Folks, two words, say it with me:

Nationalize. Amazon.

[GGover]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know if I can support it yet.

Folks, two words, say it with me:

Nationalize. Amazon.

100% behind this.

[dead0man]

Do you two own Wal Mart stock?  'cause that's who the big winner would be if you nationalized Amazon.

[parochial boy]

There are other search engines that work just fine.  And FB is even less ubiquitous, especially with the kids.


Though I agree, if you want to kill them, getting the govt involved in regulating them will do the job quicker than bad PR.  Of course in 10 years you'll just be bitching about whatever replaces them.

This. They're not monopolies because the internet is free and you can create competition easily. They're just good and successful enough to earn popularity, so instead of trampling success we should encourage others to seek the same success and try to compete.

Uhh no, Facebook and Google have become monopolies through the way they have captured the market. The barriers to entry to creating an alternative are prohibitive because of the level of inertia google and Facebook have as a result of their user base. Simple question, why would you join an alternative to Facebook if all your friends were already on Facebook?

Also, the way that silicon valley as a whole is behaving is becoming a pretty serious threat to ideals like equality and democracy

[dead0man]

There are other search engines that work just fine.  And FB is even less ubiquitous, especially with the kids.


Though I agree, if you want to kill them, getting the govt involved in regulating them will do the job quicker than bad PR.  Of course in 10 years you'll just be bitching about whatever replaces them.

This. They're not monopolies because the internet is free and you can create competition easily. They're just good and successful enough to earn popularity, so instead of trampling success we should encourage others to seek the same success and try to compete.

Uhh no, Facebook and Google have become monopolies through the way they have captured the market. The barriers to entry to creating an alternative are prohibitive because of the level of inertia google and Facebook have as a result of their user base. Simple question, why would you join an alternative to Facebook if all your friends were already on Facebook?

idk, ask one of the millions of people who don't use Facebook.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tell that to James Damore.