increased regulatory scrutiny of Tech Companies

[ohio herd]

It appears that the DOJ is looking into increased regulatory scrutiny of Big Tech companies. The probes are at their early stages, based on the published accounts, so no significant fines, forced company breakups or changes in business practices are expected anytime soon.Technology companies(Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) face a backlash in the United States and across the world, fueled by concerns among competitors, lawmakers and consumer groups that the firms have too much power and are harming users and business rivals.

What makes this any different than when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was enacted. It the first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts. ... The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, destroying competition.This seems to be slightly different due to the fact they are shaping opinion and controlling information and not controlling prices of natural resources.

What makes this any different? Is this a good or bad idea ?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/03/app...zon-facing-potential-regulatory-scrutiny.html

 

[i am herdman]

The power and money now is with these companies just as it was with the steel companies, railroads, oil, etc. 100 years ago.

That is why I laugh when people talk about the rich republicans. the true money now is with these tech giants and social media giants. They are the modern day Vanderbilt and Rockefeller types.

 

[big_country90]

The power and money now is with these companies just as it was with the steel companies, railroads, oil, etc. 100 years ago.

That is why I laugh when people talk about the rich republicans. the true money now is with these tech giants and social media giants. They are the modern day Vanderbilt and Rockefeller types.

Exactly. When you’re rich enough to be a democrat, you know you’ve made it.

 

[Chevy1]

I heard one candidate compare Facebook to a utility. All marketers have to play on that site. It's time.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Does anyone here really want "a tech company" treated and regulated like utility? Seriously. If you do, you may be a moron. What kind of "competition" does your local "utility" face?? What new competitors within the industry have regulated utilities "created". Weird. Wonder why there are higher rates every year?

"Tech companies" are nothing like the "trusts" of the 1800's. Suggesting it is absurd. Who is forcing you to look at facebook for advertisements or only ordering merchandise off Amazon Prime?

Amazon? Besides being one of the best businesses in world for consumers, it has created countless opportunities for entrepreneurs to create small independent businesses, all over the world, along with forcing competition between other retail giants and disrupting the shipping/logistics industry too...just to start the conversation.

Apple? Their music business alone has opened the markets to countless small independent artists, many would have most likely never heard of...because of the monopolies that actually existed in the industry prior. You don't want an I-phone? OK. Last I checked you had multiple other smartphone options available to purchase and use. Don't even get started on the number of app developers, content producers and distribution methods now, compared to just 5 years ago.

Regulating these businesses like a utility is as flawed an idea/topic as "net neutrality" was under the last administration. If enacted, it would lock them into a perpetual power position and limit the competitive growth to challenge them (long term) in their various business units they are now forced to compete in. (which is why the contrarian in me says, they may not be fully against such a high regulatory environment if it were enacted)

 

[i am herdman]

Does anyone here really want "a tech company" treated and regulated like utility? Seriously. If you do, you may be a moron. What kind of "competition" does your local "utility" face?? What new competitors within the industry have regulated utilities "created". Weird. Wonder why there are higher rates every year?

"Tech companies" are nothing like the "trusts" of the 1800's. Suggesting it is absurd. Who is forcing you to look at facebook for advertisements or only ordering merchandise off Amazon Prime?

Amazon? Besides being one of the best businesses in world for consumers, it has created countless opportunities for entrepreneurs to create small independent businesses, all over the world, along with forcing competition between other retail giants and disrupting the shipping/logistics industry too...just to start the conversation.

Apple? Their music business alone has opened the markets to countless small independent artists, many would have most likely never heard of...because of the monopolies that actually existed in the industry prior. You don't want an I-phone? OK. Last I checked you had multiple other smartphone options available to purchase and use. Don't even get started on the number of app developers, content producers and distribution methods now, compared to just 5 years ago.

Regulating these businesses like a utility is as flawed an idea/topic as "net neutrality" was under the last administration. If enacted, it would lock them into a perpetual power position and limit the competitive growth to challenge them (long term) in their various business units they are now forced to compete in. (which is why the contrarian in me says, they may not be fully against such a high regulatory environment if it were enacted)

I was referring to who has the money now. Elite LIBERAL tech companies.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

LOCK THEM UP!

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Does anyone here really want "a tech company" treated and regulated like utility? Seriously. If you do, you may be a moron. What kind of "competition" does your local "utility" face?? What new competitors within the industry have regulated utilities "created". Weird. Wonder why there are higher rates every year?

"Tech companies" are nothing like the "trusts" of the 1800's. Suggesting it is absurd. Who is forcing you to look at facebook for advertisements or only ordering merchandise off Amazon Prime?

Amazon? Besides being one of the best businesses in world for consumers, it has created countless opportunities for entrepreneurs to create small independent businesses, all over the world, along with forcing competition between other retail giants and disrupting the shipping/logistics industry too...just to start the conversation.

Apple? Their music business alone has opened the markets to countless small independent artists, many would have most likely never heard of...because of the monopolies that actually existed in the industry prior. You don't want an I-phone? OK. Last I checked you had multiple other smartphone options available to purchase and use. Don't even get started on the number of app developers, content producers and distribution methods now, compared to just 5 years ago.

Regulating these businesses like a utility is as flawed an idea/topic as "net neutrality" was under the last administration. If enacted, it would lock them into a perpetual power position and limit the competitive growth to challenge them (long term) in their various business units they are now forced to compete in. (which is why the contrarian in me says, they may not be fully against such a high regulatory environment if it were enacted)

Stopped reading when I realized you think Amazon is just a retail company.

Amazon and Alphabet are the two that have some serious anti-competitive issues. Facebook, who gives a fvck. Apple, shit.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Stopped reading when I realized you think Amazon is just a retail company.
.

Then maybe you should have kept reading. I never said it was just a "retail company". Problems with comprehension?? Try again...

Amazon? Besides being one of the best businesses in world for consumers, it has created countless opportunities for entrepreneurs to create small independent businesses, all over the world, along with forcing competition between other retail giants and disrupting the shipping/logistics industry too...just to start the conversation.

 

[Chevy1]

Facebook is a pretty rich area for marketing info....Sure there are other social media platforms. But comparing other social media sites to Facebook is like comparing a Jr. high school football game to the Superbowl. Companies have to go where the consumers are....right now some tech companies have a monopoly which should be addressed.

Considering how Russia used and abuse Facebook during the last election....it's time.

 

[herdfan429]

Facebook is a pretty rich area for marketing info....Sure there are other social media platforms. But comparing other social media sites to Facebook is like comparing a Jr. high school football game to the Superbowl. Companies have to go where the consumers are....right now some tech companies have a monopoly which should be addressed.

Considering how Russia used and abuse Facebook during the last election....it's time.

Hahahaha yeah the Hillary as satan ad really swayed the election. The Russians spent $100,000 on Facebook ads where the two candidates raised/spent close to $2 billion. You can argue Facebook is a monopoly and there are legit arguments on both sides of that issue but to say the Russians used and abused Facebook is just down right idiotic

 

[Chevy1]

Hahahaha yeah the Hillary as satan ad really swayed the election. The Russians spent $100,000 on Facebook ads where the two candidates raised/spent close to $2 billion. You can argue Facebook is a monopoly and there are legit arguments on both sides of that issue but to say the Russians used and abused Facebook is just down right idiotic

The power of social media is people continually sharing content. What I saw wasn't posted by Russians, it was share by friends.... And it was every f'n day....several times a day. You don't have to spend a ton to make a huge impact.

Much or most was some sort of religious-themed stuff....bizarre crap.

Not saying it swayed the election....however, there's no denying it was a major presence.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Then maybe you should have kept reading. I never said it was just a "retail company". Problems with comprehension?? Try again...

Amazon? Besides being one of the best businesses in world for consumers, it has created countless opportunities for entrepreneurs to create small independent businesses, all over the world, along with forcing competition between other retail giants and disrupting the shipping/logistics industry too...just to start the conversation.

Then finish the conversation. For all anyone knows you are going to keep going on about retail. Problems effectively using the English language?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Facebook is a pretty rich area for marketing info....Sure there are other social media platforms. But comparing other social media sites to Facebook is like comparing a Jr. high school football game to the Superbowl. Companies have to go where the consumers are....right now some tech companies have a monopoly which should be addressed.

Considering how Russia used and abuse Facebook during the last election....it's time.

^^This is just.....ignorance on full display. You have no idea what you're even talking about.^^

You're own "explanation" reinforces that facebook isn't even a "monopoly". Social media isn't even the largest holder of marketing data, let alone the producer and/or marketing of such content.

Combine that with the fact most "fortune 500" types of companies, advertising spends put fractional %s of their marketing budgets into social media marketing. (they still completely underestimate what social media could deliver)

Regardless. More proof there is no "monopoly" in the advertising world....

https://co.agencyspotter.com/50-largest-marketing-companies-in-the-world/

 

[Chevy1]

CNBC reported the effectiveness of the social media campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/17/rus...isinformation-posts-were-organic-not-ads.html

 

[Chevy1]

^^This is just.....ignorance on full display. You have no idea what you're even talking about.^^

You're own "explanation" reinforces that facebook isn't even a "monopoly". Social media isn't even the largest holder of marketing data, let alone the producer and/or marketing of such content.

Combine that with the fact most "fortune 500" types of companies, advertising spends put fractional %s of their marketing budgets into social media marketing. (they still completely underestimate what social media could deliver)

Regardless. More proof there is no "monopoly" in the advertising world....

https://co.agencyspotter.com/50-largest-marketing-companies-in-the-world/

I guess this is your pathetic form of entertainment. I really don't give a rat's ass what you have to say on any subject.

 

[i am herdman]

Stopped reading when I realized you think Amazon is just a retail company.

Amazon and Alphabet are the two that have some serious anti-competitive issues. Facebook, who gives a fvck. Apple, shit.

Amazon provides data and back engine security systems to a lot of companies. I wonder what they are doing with all that info?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Then finish the conversation. For all anyone knows you are going to keep going on about retail. Problems effectively using the English language?

we get it....Mich and others have been beating your ass for almost a week for shutting down conversations...So yet again, we have you claiming to "stop reading" when something doesn't fit your opinion. The English language was pretty clear. You were just too fvcking lazy to read it.

How about you actually add to a conversation for the first time in a while. That's the point of a thread. You want to argue semantics over Amazon's place in "retail"?? Well, that would be stupid....considering that's one of the primary problems regulators have with their dominance.

"Politicians have long raised concerns that Amazon’s dominance in online retail...

The e-commerce giant sells roughly half of all online goods in the United States...….. It has expanded into other areas, too, such as cloud computing with Amazon Web Services and grocery sales with the acquisition of Whole Foods, a deal the FTC allowed to proceed in 2017."

Not surprising they still wouldn't be considered a "monopoly" under the OP's thread premise.

"but it makes up a much smaller portion of total retail sales."

Want to talk about cloud computing? Nope. No monopoly there either:
https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/cloud-computing-service-providers/

Transports/shipping? Hardly.
https://www.joc.com/international-l...rtation-and-logistics-companies_20131115.html

 

[raleighherdfan]

Amazon provides data and back engine security systems to a lot of companies. I wonder what they are doing with all that info?

And they aren't even the largest.

https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/cloud-computing-service-providers/

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Amazon provides data and back engine security systems to a lot of companies. I wonder what they are doing with all that info?

Companies hand Amazon trade secrets and don't even think twice about it. It's amazing.

 

[raleighherdfan]

I guess this is your pathetic form of entertainment. I really don't give a rat's ass what you have to say on any subject.

Entertainment at blowing up your pathetic attempts at arguing what a monopoly is???

 

[ohio herd]

The power of social media is people continually sharing content. What I saw wasn't posted by Russians, it was share by friends.... And it was every f'n day....several times a day. You don't have to spend a ton to make a huge impact.

Much or most was some sort of religious-themed stuff....bizarre crap.

Not saying it swayed the election....however, there's no denying it was a major presence.

Personally I think much of what is pushing this action is the blatant censorship of conservatives. It goes without saying that having a presence on FB or Twitter is absolutely necessary in todays world.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

How about you actually add to a conversation for the first time in a while.

I have already touched on this subject in another recent thread. Now who is too lazy to read? The point is, retail isn't even scratching the surface with Amazon. While Amazon screws quite a few 3PS's, I don't think retail is a huge issue. Sears was once just as dominant...if not more so...and even had government policies to help it. Sears also made Amazon possible by creating a culture of retail ordering and receiving, but that's another topic...but it does show newer, better retailers emerge.

On a side note, there is a duopoly in digital advertising. Facebook and Google.

Amazon is 3rd largest in cloud/web services. Guess which one of the top 3 is in a position to use data against its own customers (which was what I commented on in that other thread)?

Like anything new, Congress and the government are 20 years behind.

 

[Chevy1]

Entertainment at blowing up your pathetic attempts at arguing what a monopoly is???

actually I was referring to bullshit and insults. I guess you believe content on social media is in the form of traditional advertising. Research has shown traditional ads are ineffective on social media sites.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Sears didn't create a culture of retail ordering and receiving. People have been ordering out of catalogs since Roman times.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Now who is too lazy to read?

Try again. You refusing to read to gain the full context of a comment and someone else simply not seeing one of your posts isn't even in the same category.

On a side note, there is a duopoly in digital advertising. Facebook and Google

ehhhh. Depends on what you're selling. As an example LinkedIn may be the best medium based on your product or service offered. But wait....someone was arguing "monopolies"...

Amazon is 3rd largest in cloud/web services. Guess which one of the top 3 is in a position to use data against its own customers

3rd largest??? Well hell, I thought by the comments in this thread there were not any other cloud/web service providers to be had out there. I guess that means companies whose data is "being used against them" can sue for damages and/or choose other competitors which currently exist to provide such a service.

 

[raleighherdfan]

I guess you believe content on social media is in the form of traditional advertising. Research has shown traditional ads are ineffective on social media sites.

WTH does any of this have to do with your initial ignorant claims that "all marketers have to play on that site" (which they don't) or comparing FB to other social media sites with a Superbowl/Jr high analogy (which is a ridiculous premise)?

"Traditional ads" vs "social media ads" has nothing to do with a thread dealing with anti-trust/monopolistic activities of a business/industry that has now been clearly shown to have little to no characteristics of such.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Personally I think much of what is pushing this action is the blatant censorship of conservatives

I cant disagree at all with this comment. The problem I have with such a policy decision makes "conservatives" no better than the liberal "EU types" simply looking for a corporate shake down. A shake down that ultimately disguises a govt. "protection" mechanism that virtually sanctions any previous legitimate wrongdoing as a future accepted business practice against the (once possible, now highly unlikely) competition.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

someone else simply not seeing one of your posts

Perhaps you should have actually added to that conversation.

ehhhh.

ehhh, it's still true. And interesting....it will become a Big Three of digital advertising soon, as Amazon is growing in that area. Shit, anyone here use a search engine other than Google? Fvck Facebook, their advertising is annoying, they can run a million ads if they want, and it is what will eventually kill them (that, and their algorithm has made the sociability of FB shit). It's also interesting that your link was about ad agencies, a totally different thing. Google's ad revenue per quarter is running near $30b now...it was kinda funny reading about ad agencies raking in a billion to be what we used to think of as being creative (visual marketing, slogans, etc) and Google makes money with an algorithm. It's a brave new world.

I guess that means companies whose data is "being used against them" can sue for damages

By the time Amazon blasts past a company, or buys them with insider info for a deal that benefits them the most, it's too late. Good luck proving it, they are slicker than Russian intelligence. NO COLLUSION.

None of this is to say they need broken up...but they need an eye on them.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I cant disagree at all with this comment.

Holy shit, something we can agree on.

 

[raleighherdfan]

By the time Amazon blasts past a company, or buys them with insider info for a deal that benefits them the most, it's too late. Good luck proving it.

When exactly does a buyer of another company not have inside knowledge of the acquired business operations and sales it's looking to purchase??? What is there to prove? Collusion?? lmao. Nope. Simply M&A.

 

[Chevy1]

WTH does any of this have to do with your initial ignorant claims that "all marketers have to play on that site" (which they don't) or comparing FB to other social media sites with a Superbowl/Jr high analogy (which is a ridiculous premise)?

"Traditional ads" vs "social media ads" has nothing to do with a thread dealing with anti-trust/monopolistic activities of a business/industry that has now been clearly shown to have little to no characteristics of such.

You were comparing media spend - traditional advertising.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

When exactly does a buyer of another company not have inside knowledge of the acquired business operations and sales it's looking to purchase??? What is there to prove? Collusion?? lmao. Nope. Simply M&A.

You've gone from it's something to sue over to it's completely normal to have access to 100% of all information from a competitor for years, doing everything (including losing money) to bury them, and then buying them. And make no mistake: that is what Amazon is in the position to do. Bezos is Walmart, who assumed they could crush competition in every town they opened, but Bezos can know he can crush them in hard numbers...and he if wants to break the law, he can steal their intellectual property while doing so (and as we know, this is actually kosher in some countries, this is not just a US issue).

 

[raleighherdfan]

You were comparing media spend - traditional advertising.

No. I was not "comparing" types of advertising. Just showing that no one has the "monopoly" on advertising.

 

[raleighherdfan]

You've gone from it's something to sue over to it's completely normal to have access to 100% of all information from a competitor for years, doing everything (including losing money) to bury them, and then buying them. And make no mistake: that is what Amazon is in the position to do. Bezos is Walmart, who assumed they could crush competition in every town they opened, but Bezos can know he can crush them in hard numbers...and he if wants to break the law, he can steal their intellectual property while doing so (and as we know, this is actually kosher in some countries, this is not just a US issue).

You've watched too many Wall St movies. No one is looking to bury a competitor in a business so they can "buy them". If this were the case your "Walmart" analogy would show Walmart buying Sears. Or even better, in Amazon's history, you're suggesting Amazon would have crushed WholeFoods before they bought them. As usual, you're not making complete sense.

If you're a true "competitor" you most likely have no current business agreement to work with or use services from Amazon. So, Amazon "stealing" your business IP would be illegal and most likely go to court. As we've already discussed there are countless other entities available for IT products or services. No one is forced to work with Amazon.

However, if you've chosen to partner with or use Amazon services, then transparency into your business will inevitably be a component of the business relationship. It would add to the potential value of both companies products/services and could potentially lead to a merger or acquisition that leads to a premium in value at the close of the deal for owners in both businesses (e.g. Amazon/WFM)

 

[Chevy1]

No. I was not "comparing" types of advertising. Just showing that no one has the "monopoly" on advertising.

Facebook has 190 million members in the US and 2.38 billion worldwide. No other social media outlet comes close. That's why it's a monopoly target.

As I'm sure you're aware, social media is an influencer medium.....getting likes and having discussions about your product, services.....or political stance - that's what Facebook and/or twitter deliver. Plus, if you "like" a company, they can tap into your friends. On your feed you might see the number of your friends have "liked" USA bank....or Raleigh Burgers. All businesses/organizations are members....and working the medium.

Finally, Facebook has a ton of info on their members.....everything from where they eat to their cell phone charge. They claim they don't sell that info to companies.....but there's no guarantee.

Many believe when Facebook failures / shortcomings impact Presidential elections, it's time to regulate.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Facebook has 190 million members in the US and 2.38 billion worldwide. No other social media outlet comes close. That's why it's a monopoly target.

As I'm sure you're aware, social media is an influencer medium.....getting likes and having discussions about your product, services.....or political stance - that's what Facebook and/or twitter deliver. Plus, if you "like" a company, they can tap into your friends. On your feed you might see the number of your friends have "liked" USA bank....or Raleigh Burgers. All businesses/organizations are members....and working the medium.

Finally, Facebook has a ton of info on their members.....everything to where they eat to their cell phone charge. They claim they don't sell that info to companies.....but there's no guarantee.

Many believe when Facebook failures / shortcomings impact Presidential elections, it's time to regulate.

You should have saved yourself some time from typing. You still don't seem to understand what you're pointing out here doesn't make FB a monopoly. It's a service individuals and businesses CHOOSE to use. They are not forced to use FB for any reason. You worried about personal information???? Please don't tell me you're this naïve. Close your account and move on.

You keep pointing to FB as a marketing tool. OK. Unfortunately, Its still not a monopoly I am forced to use to market my business. I can market my business on FB, on LinkedIn, on Craigslist, on TV, on Internet search, on Instagram, in industry magazines, in local publications, on YouTube, on email distribution lists, on Groupon, on Ebay, in...…..No reason to keep typing. You still don't understand FB isn't a monopoly. Its one medium in a wide open field of ways to market your business or (self).

 

[Chevy1]

Again, 190 million subscribers.....it's the sheer size that makes it a target for regulation - be it a monopoly or regulated like a utility. Regulated is what I mentioned initially.

Also, due to its 190 mil members, if you're going to market a product, you'll need to be involved with this site. It commands too large of an audience to ignore. Not saying you have to buy ads, but you'll need to be engaged.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Again, 190 million subscribers.....it's the sheer size that makes it a target for regulation - be it a monopoly or regulated like a utility. Regulated is what I mentioned initially.

Also, due to its 190 mil members, if you're going to market a product, you'll need to be involved with this site. It commands too large of an audience to ignore. Not saying you have to buy ads, but you'll need to be engaged.

Regulating a business in a competitive industry, like a utility, simply because it has a lot of voluntary users who choose to use it, is asinine.

How much competition does your local utility company have? Are you able to shop and compare services or rates for your water, electric, or nat gas between companies? I’ve continued to show you there is no monopoly in the FB business. The purpose of such anti trust (monopoly) regulation would be to eliminate anti trade practices. There simply isn’t any you can name. Nothing you’ve mentioned demonstrates unfair trade practices against business competitors. In fact, what you highlighted demonstrates the exact opposite.

You want to try again?

 

[Chevy1]

This is my last word on this.....it's really not difficult unless you want it to be.

There's a reason child labor laws, anti trust laws, the Clean Air Act, food and restaurant regulations, etc. exist. It's because businesses/entities operated in a fashion that was detrimental/harmful to the public.

Allowing hostile foreign govts to operate mis-information campaigns through US information companies is detrimental to US citizens. When a company, like Facebook, who vastly dominates social media, doesn't or can't operate in a way that prohibits these misinformation campaigns, then regulations, in some form, will and should occur.