Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-amazon.html <comment><USER4> How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech _monopolies_? I already don't use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren't hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast's network because that's my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don't approve of, they don't _actively lobby congress_ for things that will make my use of the internet objectively worse (NN, SOPA, etc...).

But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google, because they're better at playing that game.

<comment><USER5> >But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google...

Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress.

The bulk of Google's lobbying expenditure was for immigration, tax reform and antitrust. I'd say Google's far better "at playing the game" after all no one is randomly sticking up for Comcast.

<comment><USER4> You're right, I should have checked the facts before speculating on which company spent more on lobbying. However, the things they are lobbying for/against also matter. As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides.

From [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/)

> Not only was Google the pro-net neutrality organization that spent the most > on lobbying in 2014 — $16.8 million in 2014 — it was the 10th biggest > spender on federal lobbying that year. Impressive as that sounds, however, > it still ranked behind both Comcast and the National Cable and > Telecommunications Association.

And it seems like every dollar that Comcast spends lobbying is directed towards efforts that will have a negative impact on my life, and the lives of everyone not on Comcast's board of directors. At least with Google, sometimes our incentives align, so that's another point in favor of attempting to break up the Comcast monopoly before the Google one.

<comment><USER6> >As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides

This isn't as uncontroversial of an opinion as it might appear to be in a place like HN. What you're admitting here basically is that you think Comcast should be broken up because they lobby for things you don't like, but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.

<comment><USER4> No, you're putting words in my mouth, or misunderstanding my point.

> you think Comcast should be broken up

I think efforts to break up tech monopolies should first be focused on telecommunication companies.

> because they lobby for things you don't like,

Not just me, but are objectively harmful to 99% of the people they would affect

> but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.

I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align.

With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition.

[1]: [https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast- spends-9...](https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast- spends-900k-fort-collins-election)

<comment><USER7> > With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons > of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue > to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent > Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti- > competitive and monopolistic by definition.

I'm sure if the U.S. government was proposing to sell public bonds to build a search engine or ride-sharing service, you'd see a lot of lobbying from Silicon Valley. It's not "actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition" to oppose _government backed and funded_ competition in your industry.

<comment><USER8> Search engine and ride-sharing don't seem to be natural monopolies however. Communication infrastructure in most part of the USA clearly is.

Still I agree breaking up Comcast is not the solution. You will just end up with smaller more localized monopolies. That's pretty much what happened with Bell after all.

The solution would be either nationalizing the infrastructure and leasing it to operators or forcing existing operators to rent their infrastructure to their competitors for a set price. The later is actually working quite well in France. Short of that you will never get competition. It's simply not profitable.

<comment><USER7> It's working terribly in France. France has some of the slowest broadband in the OECD: [https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state- of-t...](https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the- internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf). Just 18% of French households have connections faster than 15 mbps, versus 48% of American households.

<comment><USER8> That's mostly because France never used copper cable as a TV distribution system and is going straight to fiber. Deployment is admittedly slower than it should be especially in the countryside where it will never be profitable due to low density. Meanwhile, people are stuck with ADSL and VDSL which give connections closer to 10mbps than 15.

Cost wise however, you can't even compare the USA and France. In France, a full speed FTTH subscription with no data cap cost 25 euros and you can pay 20 more to get a cell phone plan with unlimited call and unlimited data. If you are ready to switch provider yearly, you can bring that down to 25 euros all included.

<comment><USER7> According to the December 2017 OECD data, France and the U.S. are basically tied in terms of fiber deployment (12-13% of total broadband connections): [https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroad...](https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroadband-2017-12.xls). Which is pretty remarkable because in the U.S., fiber is a relatively smaller upgrade, because fast cable alternatives are available in almost every fiber market. (Just 1/3 of people who can get FiOS actually subscribe, for example. Google fiber has struggled to break 40% too.)

And how quickly is France's number going to grow given that France's second largest ISP recently cancelled its plans to deploy fiber? [https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice- aba...](https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-abandons- effort-to-lay-its-own-fibre-technology-across-france-idUSL8N1OD2O5).

Also note that the French deployment is being heavily subsidized by the government (to the tune of $24 billion). Except for a small amount during the post-2008 economic stimulus, broadband deployment in the U.S. is not subsidized. Whereas the French government is paying a direct subsidy to build fiber in rural areas, in the U.S. rural deployment is financed by a cross subsidy (taxing ISPs in urban areas to subsidize ISPs in rural ones).

<comment><USER9> Wasn't Verizon given billions in subsidies for FTTH (which they installed on the east and west coast, the most profitable areas) and then sold off vast areas they didn't touch to companies like Frontier?

<comment><USER7> They certainly weren't given cash like the french government is doing. The most you can say is that Bell Atlantic, Verizon's predecessor, was allowed to accelerate depreciation of their copper network more quickly than under the previous tax rules.[1] Whether that amounted to a subsidy depends on how quickly the value of the copper plant decreased after fiber was built. The accelerated depreciation was based on the quite reasonable assumption that the value of the copper network depreciated more quickly after fiber was built. I've never seen a calculation refuting that premise.

[1] When you build an income-producing capital asset like copper wire in the ground, you can't deduct the cost from your revenues immediately for tax purposes, like you can with say employee salaries. Instead, you gradually deduct the capital cost over the income-producing life of the asset. If the government allowes you to depreciate an asset faster than the value of the asset actually drops, that nets you some tax benefit due to the time value of money. On the other hand, if the accelerated depreciation reflects the fact that certain types of assets depreciate quicker, then it will result in the correct amount of taxes being paid. For example IT equipment in data centers can generally be written off immediately—unlike wires in the the ground it's pretty much worthless after a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's precedent to this in the USA. The US Government once passed regulations that caused one of the largest companies in America to break up into three smaller companies. Today those, three companies are entirely independent, employ over 400,000 people combined, and have a combined net work of over $400B.

Those companies are Boeing Aircraft (153k employees, $244B market value), United Technologies (202k employees, $148B market value), and United Airlines (88k employees, $33B market value).[0]

What most people perceive as a threat to the market is when one company takes over an entire single market. And that is a problem, no doubt. But in the case of Boeing, the problem was that one company had such an advantage vertically- lose money on planes in order to make money on shipping, or vice versa, as needed. It meant it could win in whichever market it wanted to and slowly come to dominate all of those markets. The synergies of doing it all internally meant it could win at everything.

If one uses that situation as a precedent, one can start to see the parallels in many of the FAANG companies today.

[0] "The Air Mail Act of 1934 prohibited airlines and manufacturers from being under the same corporate umbrella, so the company split into three smaller companies – Boeing Airplane Company, United Airlines, and United Aircraft Corporation, the precursor to United Technologies." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing)

<comment><USER11> The problem is this type of vertical splitting doesn't solve the problem of large tech companies. It's like treating a burst appendix with a kidney transplant.

The problem of Amazon is that it is effectively the only online shopping place, and thus can act as a Monopsony in hiring it's workers for warehouses, splitting AWS out of that doesn't fix that problem. Maybe you could require that distribution centers be owned by separate companies. This might work but locally each Center would still be a Monopsony and thus cause the same problem. Maybe if you capped the size of distribution center you could force lots of smaller ones to be built, but at this point I worry that you are going to end up making shipping slower and more expensive.

The problem of Google is they are very dominate in the Ads space splitting out the Ads portion into another company would not solve that. Facebook's problems is everyone has put their data in Facebook has friends in Facebook and feel compelled to keep using it. I don't see how splitting up the company into, Instagram, What's App, and Facebook solves the network effects of those apps.

Splitting up tech companies is not a punishment to make the CEO feel bad or change their ways. It is a technique to change how we need the market works to benefit the large population. As such we need to think about how to split them, the effects, and most importantly if the effect achieves the intended result.

<comment><USER12> If we had a progressive corporate tax, I think all the problems would sort themselves out.

You want to build a trillion dollar company? Fine. Corporate tax rate of 50%. You're a small business with less than $1M in revenue. Cool. Corporate tax rate of 0%.

Big companies will break up to take advantage of the tax code. Problem solved.

Instead, the bigger you are, the harder you can lobby for tax breaks. Currently, if you're a $1M company, that sucks. You pay 20%+. If you're Amazon, you pay $0.

<comment><USER13> I agree 100% and have long felt this is the right approach. Basically the bigger you get, the harder it gets to keep getting bigger.

<comment><USER14> I feel like all that will create is "partnership contracts" where a large company will be split into the "ideal" size tax-wise while still being run by an "advisory board". Compensation gets interesting at that point though, so many its an interesting idea.

<comment><USER15> a constellation of partnerships happening through more tangible corporate boundaries sounds much better. right now it seems to happen in unclear ways, and I assume is much less observable from outside forces (e.g. Sidewalk Labs & Google & Intersection, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Comparisons will be made to Microsoft and Internet Explorer but to me the really crucial part of this isn't market dominance in the "what app are you using" sense, it's data.

Facebook, Google and Amazon really do have an unprecedented amount of data on us. And keep vacuuming up more and more of it. Facebook should never have been allowed to buy WhatsApp (and maybe not Instagram though I'm less concerned about that one). Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick.

Question is how you'd effectively roll that back now. I'm concerned that the government doesn't have enough people with the technical knowledge to really tackle the data question, but I'm still glad Warren is starting the conversation. And she's got some interesting ideas:

> Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that > offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for > connecting third parties would be designated as "platform utilities."

> These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility > and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required > to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with > users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data > with third parties.

[https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up- big...](https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big- tech-9ad9e0da324c)

<comment><USER17> > Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more ...

Hiding revenue is something multi-national corporations do really well.

If I ran a company that had a platform as described, and we were approaching the 25bn mark, I'd find ways to make sure we never crossed that line.

Losing IP to what would become a 'public utility' would discourage me from ever trying to develop beyond the 24.9bn mark.

<comment><USER18> That works to some degree, but there's some point at where it is more beneficial to just spin the platform into its own company and let it be regulated while all your other services can operate freely without having to hide most of their revenue.

Sure, some of your IP moves to a new company that is more restricted in how it can operate. But at least your marketplace doesn't hold back everything else your company is doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To what end? "illegally undermine competition?"

She is inferring that Google/Amazon/Facebook are committing anti-trust crimes? What proof does she have?

>Companies would be barred from transferring or sharing users' data with third parties.

That can be done without breaking them up. I don't think she realizes that splitting up amazon and amazon basics will do little to nothing.

There are other things that can be done. You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example. However I suspect the democrats would never propose that because it would be bad for them.

<comment><USER5> >I don't think she realizes that splitting up amazon and amazon basics will do little to nothing.

I think amazon : amazon basics is a great example of antitrust/unfair monopoly the same as google search : almost all consumer facing google products.

Both amazon and google search are the dominate online market leaders in their respective categories. In amazons case they unfairly use their market position to begin offering amazon private label products on their platform. They know what users are looking for, spend the most on, and they can give their own products dominate positions in the UI. In the case of google they too unfairly use their position as a market leader against their own customers (advertisers), so say you are a hotel booking platform and spend $x with google, google knows the market (searches, clicks, etc...) so google launches their own hotel booking, gives their in-house service priority in search results over existing market incumbents and self bids on google search advertising for key industry terms to drive up costs of advertisers to keep in business.

It's kind of like standard oil buying up the railroads so they owned the supply chain and no other oil could be moved. It's unfairly using your market position, not to compete, but to be anti competitive to the detriment of consumers.

I'd like to see the tech giants prevented from unfairly using their market dominance to stifle competition. As we saw with the break up of standard oil...competition is good for consumers.

<comment><USER20> > In amazons case they unfairly use their market position to begin offering > amazon private label products on their platform. They know what users are > looking for, spend the most on, and they can give their own products > dominate positions in the UI.

1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue is not the practice itself, but rather that the digital marketplace makes it easier and more efficient.

2) The consumer (along with Amazon) is a beneficiary here. The losers are brands trying to sell commodity items at a markup. The play is not to undercut all the power strip sellers (to take an example) and once they are out of business, jack up the price. The play is to take the margin due to marketing and brand equity from the sellers and split it between the consumer and Jeff Bezos, so rather than being harmed, the consumer benefits from this.

<comment><USER21> > 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares > at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at > issue is not the practice itself, but rather that the digital marketplace > makes it easier and more efficient.

The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power.

> 2) The consumer (along with Amazon) is a beneficiary here. The losers are > brands trying to sell commodity items at a markup. The play is not to > undercut all the power strip sellers (to take an example) and once they are > out of business, jack up the price. The play is to take the margin due to > marketing and brand equity from the sellers and split it between the > consumer and Jeff Bezos, so rather than being harmed, the consumer benefits > from this.

That seems like a very charitable way of describing the situation, and even if accurate may only remain true in the short term. Whether undercutting branded sellers is the goal or not, that's exactly what's happening--even as you charitably describe it. What happens ten years down the road when those brands are gone due to Amazon's allegedly benevolent undercutting?

I'm not sure about the ultimate merits here (in fact, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that Amazon has all of the market power that some say it does). But I think you may be dismissing this all a bit too quickly.

<comment><USER22> > The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power.

I don't see Amazon as being particularly more of a monopoly than Walmart. If Amazon was a traditional brick and mortar business, would we even be having this conversation?

<comment><USER23> I think the difference is that they are better at pissing people off essentially by transgressing status quo norms. Most tech companies are too right for the left and too left for the right in addition to their "upsetting their perceptions of the natural order" aspects.

A big chain consumes the market and puts others our of businesses and it is just how things are. A new internet company goes from niche to cannot be ignored and it is scary change despite the impact being essentially the same.

Combine that with openly envious old media and their selective condemnation. I honestly suspect the real reason is that tech companies don't buy enough TV ads for their liking given the softball treatment of ones that do frequently like cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > The key components of the Warren plan include passing legislation that would > designate companies with annual global revenue above $25 billion that > provide marketplace, exchange, or third-party connectivity as "platform > utilities" and prohibit those companies from owning participants on their > platforms.

As a Googler, speaking for myself, this seems like an interesting idea that could positively impact the tech scene.

<comment><USER25> I also see Elizabeth Warren has created a set of powerful enemies way too early that will do much to stop her from becoming America's first woman president. If you wanna do something like this wait until you are in office. These are not issues that your average American cares about.

<comment><USER26> Unfortunately I agree. Since Silicon Valley leans left so heavily this is the sort of thing you sit on until much later in the process. I personally feel that Google, Facebook, et al are too big and powerful now, this is going to immediately set those companies against her so she's kneecapping her campaign before it even gets started.

<comment><USER27> > Since Silicon Valley leans left so heavily

I really believe it doesn't. No serious concentration of wealth ever does. Yes, personal attitudes in SV are often liberal, but the economic outlook most common in the place is akin to Andrew Carnegie with a git repo. It's this economic outlook where her proposal targets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone actually believe that the US government's interventions against Microsoft made the slightest bit of difference, as opposed to huge shifts in the internet and mobile landscape?

You could argue that the emergence of Firefox and Chrome was only made possible by the ability to assign a "default" non-IE browser in Windows, but that ability pre-dated any of the anti-trust stuff anyway; all you got out of that was a mandatory pop-up when you installed Windows asking you if you wanted to use a different browser.

The emergence of Firefox was by itself a huge shift, and Chrome another one, against Microsoft's browser monopoly. Its OS monopoly got broken (insofar as it is broken) by a combination of the rise of mobile and Apples re-emergence as a viable platform. Its office application monopoly got broken (insofar as it is broken) by a combination of online email systems (especially gmail) and the increased availability of online alternatives.

All the justice department did was waste their time; they could have just sat by the river and waited for the body of their enemy to float by instead.

<comment><USER29> I apolgoize that I don't have any references available at the moment, but I've read in several books that Microsoft insiders said it made an enormous difference.

Having the government essentially watching their every move caused them to moderate their actions, and make sure they were on the right side of the law.

They were much more conservative than they otherwise would have been. It was described as a large cultural shift in the company and their way of thinking.

<comment><USER30> Here's an alternative source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case- against...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against- google.html)

"Anyone who said that the 1990s prosecution of Microsoft didn't accomplish anything — that it was companies like Google, rather than government lawyers, that humbled Microsoft — didn't know what they were talking about, Reback said. In fact, he argued, the opposite was true: The antitrust attacks on Microsoft made all the difference. Condemning Microsoft as a monopoly is why Google exists today, he said."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What is the alleged anti-competitive behavior? The article doesn't mention it. It sounds like she is calling for their breakup merely for being big and powerful, and if that were cause enough to break up an entity we would logically start with the government.

<comment><USER32> For starters, Amazon provided a marketplace platform for third parties to sell goods. They then gathered data on which items sold the best, created their own line of products based off this data, and crushed their customers-turned- competitors using their massive advantage in economies of scale.

<comment><USER33> FWIW, while I agree this a problem, large box retailers (Whole Foods before the Amazon acquisition, Walmart, etc) are well known for doing this as well.

So if that's the line you draw, it extends further than just tech giants.

<comment><USER34> It's a little bit different though, because Amazon has 2 streams of how they get products: Amazon can buy branded from vendor and control price and selection, or those same vendors could list directly on Amazon (as FBA) and the vendor controls price and selection.

Pop sockets got in a fight recently with Amazon, because they wanted to stay FBA in order to have better control of selection and pricing, but Amazon was trying to force them into a more traditional vendor role.

<comment><USER35> Right, and Walmart only allows products in its store under their terms which is far more restrictive, so I'm failing to understand how this model is _worse_ for competition than Walmart's.

And what happened with PopSockets didn't quite work that way. They were already a vendor on Amazon, and they wanted to remove themselves as a direct vendor and designate a single reseller as their "approved" FBA on Amazon.

So they wanted to change the terms of the agreement, Amazon said no, and that was that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Google/Facebook/Amazon have the power to push any startup competition out of the market in ways that are hard to even enumerate. Think about all of the services, devices, and standards that they control.

Watching the fanboys defend their favorite tech giant is incredible. These companies are not behaving in the markets or people's best interest and they are way too big, at a scale that dwarfs most of the worlds organizations.

<comment><USER35> > Watching the fanboys defend their favorite tech giant is incredible. These > companies are not behaving in the markets or people's best interest and they > are way too big, at a scale that dwarfs most of the worlds organizations.

It's not illegal to be big, it's illegal to use your influence to prevent competition in a way that's illegal. There's zero evidence of that, which is why she's talking about a new law.

And please refrain from calling those that disagree with you "fanboys". It diminishes every single point you're attempting to make, because you sound like a jaded teenager rather than an adult that wants to have a conversation.

<comment><USER37> Google was hit with a big antitrust violation fine in the EU in 2017 for demoting rival shopping services: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google- fined-e2-42bn-for-e...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google- fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/)

<comment><USER38> The FTC looked into the same issue and ruled in 2013 that Google did not violate US antitrust laws: [https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_sta...](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/statement- commission-regarding-googles-search-practices/130103brillgooglesearchstmt.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I ran across two quotes by Warren that caught my attention:

> "unwind tech mergers that illegally undermine competition"

> "I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most > powerful companies in America — plays by the rules"

The word "illegally" in the first quote really set off my alarm bells. What have large companies like Amazon, Google, FB, etc. done that is considered illegal in this regard?

The "by the rules" in the second quote is confusing too. What does that mean? Which rules are being broken?

The way I see it: Isn't it the goal of entrepreneurs to be as successful as possible? Let's say I found a way to grow a business to that of the size of some of the bigger ones (which would be awesome). To grow a business that big, consumers obviously like what I'm selling/producing. I get the impression that Warren is saying she doesn't like big businesses because they snuff out the little ones. And maybe that's true, but why is that a concern of the government? There's nothing stopping a smaller company (or even an individual) from coming up with a really good idea and trying that idea out in something like his garage, and then reshaping the next generation... kinda like Amazon did in comparison to Sears. Or Microsoft did with IBM.

I'm sure there's going to be plenty of disagreements on my stance, but I guess I'm just not seeing this problem in the same light as Warren.

<comment><USER40> It's a little hard to tell if you're asking "are there laws against monopolies?" or "should there be laws against monopolies?".

The answer to the first is a certain yes. There are laws against businesses forming monopolies in the United States. You can read up on the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts from the 1890s and 1910s to start with. There is also considerable case law stemming from this legislation.

The answer to "should there be laws against monopolies" is a little more open. One theoretical justification for breaking up monopolies, is that in some cases monopolies cause economic inefficiencies. Look up "deadweight loss from monopoly pricing".

It's very complicated to measure any efficiencies or inefficiencies from tech monopolies, so I don't think there's a clear answer.

It's also not generally agreed upon that economic efficiency should be the goal of government, so there is a lot of room for debate on that question.

<comment><USER39> Those are great points. I didn't break my main thoughts into those two smaller thoughts. And I also appreciate this comment:

> It's also not generally agreed upon that economic efficiency should be the > goal of government

I think you managed to sum up my thoughts much better than I did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful.

I can't think of a single market segment where Google and Amazon lack effective competition. Facebook is already bleeding users, and how would you break up a social media company in an impactful way anyhow? Facebook's ventures outside of social media aren't even close to being monopolies.

<comment><USER42> Yeah, they are not monopolies in the classical sense, so the regulatory position has to be much more nuanced.

But there are issues:

\+ Amazon uses profits from AWS to dump in other sectors, selling goods and services below market value. The weird situation could mean Amazon pumps many billion dollars a year into pushing major grocers (who operate on thin margins) out of business. This is not good for anyone - but it's not a case of 'monopoly' so much.

\+ Google is dumping in adjacent areas of tech - giving away Android for free, for example.

There should be some regulatory tweaks here, but it's going to be tricky.

As you point out - a much easier win would be to break up value chain consolidation over all.

Carriers, tech providers, content creators, content distributors - <USER2> benefit from being separate entities.

I don't think there are any net benefits to society from these entities being consolidated. There are no economies of scale, no proper synergies. There are however, huge incentives for investors to have AT&T own content creation and distribution obviously, so they can subsidize their own assets and not others. There's no long win for consumers so it makes sense to keep them separate.

Finally - there might be an opportunity on platforms. I think that the Apple store may be an anti-competitive issue - the notion that you don't control/own the $1K device you just bought is getting ridiculous. I would require platform makers to at allow open access to the platform. Same would apply to mobile phones being 'locked' onto a network - that should just not happen.

<comment><USER22> > Amazon uses profits from AWS to dump in other sectors, selling goods and > services below market value.

There is big competition in cloud computing so AWS is priced according to market rates. I seriously doubt AWS profit is significant enough to influence the rest of Amazon in way that would be considered monopoly abuse. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods did not result in WF reducing prices (as was expected) to uncut other grocers in that market.

> Google is dumping in adjacent areas of tech - giving away Android for free, > for example.

That ship has sailed; Google effectively eliminated the market for mobile operating systems and Microsoft could basically no longer sell Windows Mobile. But the open-sourcing of Android has led to direct competition as well -- Amazon runs a completely Google-free version of Android on their products.

<comment><USER43> AWS is 10% of sales but 58% of operating income. Margins on AWS are hovering around 30% and growth has been double-digit every quarter for several years now.

AWS profits were worth a few hundred billion over the past seven years. As Amazon only as $40 billion in cash on hand, it's hard to argue they haven't put that money to good use.

<comment><USER44> You are off by an order of magnitude. AWS had an operating income of $7.296 Billion USD in the 12 months ending in 2018 [0] and has been growing at about 45% YOY for many years. Extrapolating those numbers gives them about $21.765 billion USD of operating income in the past 7 years.

[0]: [https://ir.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release- detail...](https://ir.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release- details/amazoncom-announces-fourth-quarter-sales-20-724-billion)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think we should also consider that even if you do break up a large company like that, you'd need to make sure they don't pull an AT&T and start merging with each other to basically re-create their previous structure.

<comment><USER45> Yeah, I'm still amazed that when AT&T was split up, there wasn't anything in the ruling preventing them from just joining the parts back together again.

<comment><USER46> Yeah it seems ridiculous in hindsight. I think what enabled the mergers though was less someone with a brilliant idea that they could just recombine, and more the drastic change in the government's conception and enforcement of antcompetitiveness laws. That is, they wouldn't have tried to merge back together if the they didn't think the government might let them. The government can and does does block mergers, still, and it makes sense that that they wouldn't just want to ban a specific company from a specific market share for all eternity.

<comment><USER47> This is the exact issue. The DOJ's Antitrust Criminal Enforcement Division breaks up the companies by making an argument that's then directly contradicted by the DOJ's Merger Enforcement Division's (very outdated) policy on approving mergers. From the Merger Enforcement Guidelines[1] (last updated in 1997):

> By definition, non-horizontal mergers involve firms that do not operate in > the same market. It necessarily follows that such mergers produce no > immediate change in the level of concentration in any relevant market as > defined in Section 2 of these Guidelines.

The Merger Enforcement Division's assumption may have been true in 1997 but it's difficult to argue that simply because Google and Amazon don't operate in the "same market" as their primary businesses that their combination would "produce no immediate change in the level of concentration" of the market for both online advertising and computing services. Yet, under these guidelines, if a Google + Amazon merger were proposed it wouldn't present any immediate issue for the Antitrust Division to oppose it.

[1][https://www.justice.gov/atr/non-horizontal-merger- guidelines](https://www.justice.gov/atr/non-horizontal-merger-guidelines)

<comment><USER48> Amazon and Google do operate in several of the same markets. Amazon sells Kindle/Fire devices. Google sells Android phones. Amazon does product search. Google has a product search engine.

<comment><USER47> Antitrust enforcement focuses on the "primary market" of the entities. Google's primary market is advertising and Amazon's primary market is retail products. The DOJ does consider the potential anti-competitive impact on tertiary markets the two entities operate in but it wouldn't be a barrier to the hypothetical merger because those markets have plenty of other competitors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> From Warren's blog post:

> ... Google's ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split > apart. Google Search would have to be spun off as well.

I think maybe her team needs to do a little more research on what Google's business is. Splitting off Android/Play or GCP at least creates potentially viable businesses. Splitting up search and ads creates two non-viable businesses.

<comment><USER49> > two non-viable businesses

1\. Search company earns money by selling ad spots to ads company.

2\. Ads company earns money by selling ads to merchants.

<comment><USER28> The problem is that 1. is better known as "Search + ads".

To put it differently, how does GSearch decide what and whether to show ads for a given search? Well, they could sell keywords by auction to parties interested in placing ads, and then use clicks and other user feedback to decide how relevant they are (that is, how much UX is lost by placing ads nobody clicks on top of results that users want). Whether they're selling to GAd or directly to merchants, or to SEM companies that act as middlemen in the current world does not seem like the important issue.

You could in theory separate search engine ads from site ads, but I don't think anyone is really complaining about the fact that Google owns so much of that business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> > The parallel she uses to make her case is the breakup of Microsoft, which > she weirdly calls "the tech giant of its time" (Microsoft is still a tech > giant), and holds as perhaps the last example when government went toe to > toe with the technology industry.

> "The government's antitrust case against Microsoft helped clear a path for > Internet companies like Google and Facebook to emerge," Warren writes.

In what way was Microsoft 'broken up'? The outcome[1] from that antitrust case seems to be that Microsoft had to publicly expose all of Windows' APIs to developers (no secret APIs).

If anything, the outcome of the Microsoft case seems to support non- intervention as AppGoogBook all flourished despite no serious breakup of Microsoft.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement)

<comment><USER51> It's funny how Microsoft isn't mentioned in the same breath as FAANG companies. It's in the top 3 companies by market cap, has a dozen billion- dollar businesses, does really well in enterprise, is aggressive in the cloud and hardware, has a large seat at the open-source table these days, and has a large set of older products that keep generating billions. If Apple is in there, why not Microsoft? Both are heavily concentrated in one area, pay similarly, have similar prestige. Is it simply because we don't know where to put the M in FAANG? Or is it because they aren't as big in the consumer space?

<comment><USER52> Microsoft is pretty big in consumer space as well - Xbox, Skype, Bing ...I think its Silicon Valley vs not in Silicon Valley thing. Microsoft is counted out because of not being physically located in SV. Thats my theory.

<comment><USER53> Amazon isn't located in SV either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Planet Money looks prescient again, with a three-part series on how antitrust rules evolved in the US, and how they are changing in response to Big Tech:

* [https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/anti...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/antitrust-1-standard-oil)

* [https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/20/696342011/anti...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/20/696342011/antitrust-2-the-paradox)

* [https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/anti...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/antitrust-3-big-tech)

</comment><comment><USER55> Even if it were beneficial (argument in itself), Big Government is unequipped to handle the break-up of these companies in way that protects their value to consumers.

</comment><comment><USER56> Nitpicking here, but in Warren's post she writes:

> Google couldn't smother competitors by demoting their products on Google > Search.

Isn't this already illegal?

<comment><USER57> What about AMP, where failure to publish your content using their proprietary toolkit meant that you wouldn't be featured at the top of the search results?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Preventing those companies from buying out others and using their incredible size and resources to quashing competition I can support. Splitting into pieces can make sense as well. It looks like Warren's definition of "Fair Use" is more in the context of selling widgets and does not appear to be tied to free speech issues. I guess that Elizabeth Warren isn't supporting a definition of "fair use" of these platforms that matches the United States Supreme court definition of free speech.

</comment><comment><USER59> There's zero net benefit in breaking up large companies that are driving innovation and improving consumer experiences.

If you don't like the economic result, redistribute some of the growth. Walmart doesn't deserve to be saved by splitting up Amazon if they can't compete.

<comment><USER60> The thought, clearly expressed in Elizabeth Warren's post, is that Amazon et al are stifling innovation by discouraging entrants and using dominant positions in adjacent industries to crowd out competitors. This isn't a new idea—it's one of the pillars of antitrust.

<comment><USER59> They're not stifling innovation. Their successes have had massive spillover effects helping other companies to innovate. The Golden Goose is still laying eggs.

This isn't Standard Oil. It's not Ma Bell. When they stop innovating and start extracting rents we can have a reasonable conversation about breaking them up.

<comment><USER60> All I can say is that a lot of people disagree with you. If you're interested in that perspective, a good book is "World Without Mind" by Franklin Foer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> > The story demonstrates why promoting competition is so important: it allows > new, groundbreaking companies to grow and thrive — which pushes everyone in > the marketplace to offer better products and services. Aren't we all glad > that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with > Bing?

It's dishonest to suggest that the outcome of the US vs Microsoft somehow paved the way for Google. I would argue it was pretty non-consequential but looms in the public conscious.

From wikipedia:

> On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle > the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its > application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a > panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, > records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[29] > However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor > prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future ... > > Law professor Eben Moglen noted that the way Microsoft was required to > disclose its APIs and protocols was useful only for "interoperating with a > Windows Operating System Product", not for implementing support of those > APIs and protocols in any competing operating system.

<comment><USER62> It's been discussed in multiple articles that Microsoft had considered moves it could make to kill Google, but didn't because of it's recent antitrust settlement.

> As the government sued, Microsoft executives became so anxious and gun-shy > that they essentially undermined their own monopoly out of terror they might > be pilloried again. It wasn't the consent decrees or court decisions that > made the difference, according to multiple current and former Microsoft > employees. It was "the constant scrutiny and being in the newspaper all the > time," said Gene Burrus, a former Microsoft lawyer. "People started second- > guessing themselves. No one wanted to test the regulators anymore."

> There had been informal conjectures about reprogramming Microsoft's web > browser, the popular Internet Explorer, so that anytime people typed in > "Google," they would be redirected to MSN Search, according to company > insiders.

> Microsoft was so powerful, and Google so new, that the young search engine > could have been killed off, some insiders at both companies believe. "But > there was a new culture of compliance, and we didn't want to get in trouble > again, so nothing happened," Burrus said. The myth that Google humbled > Microsoft on its own is wrong. The government's antitrust lawsuit is one > reason that Google was eventually able to break Microsoft's monopoly.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case- against...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against- google.html)

[http://archive.is/abGMG](http://archive.is/abGMG)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I think the most obvious candidate is to split Google and Youtube.

<comment><USER64> which would be very interesting, as youtube is 100% dependent on Google infrastructure to work (everything from machine learning to data delivery).

<comment><USER65> And Windows was dependent in Internet Explorer to operate.

And that dependence was both created artificially and then abused.

Why can't YouTube switch to, say, Azure? Or Oracle Cloud? or whatever other magic exists?

Infrastructure exists outside of Google - as did the ability to decouple Internet Explorer from Windows.

<comment><USER64> windows was never dependent on internet explorer to operate. MS put a simple DLL with HTML and other web tech in the OS, making it easier to serve up help and other content. What they did (IMHO) was completely reasonable in terms of OS integration. Look at ChromeOS today- it's the same idea, taken to its logical conclusion.

People often misrepresent the MS trial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> To my knowledge, American monopoly laws focus more on the welfare of the consumer and whether customers are being negatively affected rather than the companies themselves. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly, but where issues arise is when consumers start to be hurt.

In this context, how do Elizabeth Warren's comments mesh out?

<comment><USER62> Monopolies are inherently harmful to consumers, as reduced competition means less parties can compete for the best offering, or push to create a better product. The myth that a monopoly "isn't hurting anyone" is nonsense. It's existence is enough, and yes, impacting other competitors negatively directly harms consumers. There has been an outdated focus on _price_ specifically, which is why many free services have evaded the law for so long.

That being said, Warren directly states something tech companies should be competing on: Privacy. An issue with direct consumer impact, that due to monopoly status, these companies have largely not set as a priority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> This gets me very excited. As a bay area resident, we've seen the income stratification from these companies ruin our way of life. It's just untenable.

Warren has my vote.

</comment><comment><USER68> I'd like to say this is just politics but I'm not even sure it's good politics. How many people are really concerned about the size of Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. If people are that concerned, why do so many people I know have Prime?

The fossil fuel industry continues to run rampant. As does the Military Industrial Complex. The former is a key player in the degradation of the planet; the latter is a money sucking Hover that is sucking the life out of infrastructure, education, etc.

The environment and peace are much bigger issues than taking down and busting up the tech giants.

Editorial: I want to like Liz Warren. I can related to some of her ideals. Unfortunately, as a politician she too often comes off as inexperienced, out of touch and/or naive. This is another one of those times.

<comment><USER69> > I'd like to say this is just politics but I'm not even sure it's good > politics. How many people are really concerned about the size of Amazon, > Facebook, Google, etc

Oh, lots and lots.

> If people are that concerned, why do so many people I know have Prime?

The reason so many of the people you know have Prime is _because_ of Amazon's dominant market position.

> The fossil fuel industry continues to run rampant. As does the Military > Industrial Complex. The former is a key player in the degradation of the > planet; the latter is a money sucking Hover that is sucking the life out of > infrastructure, education, etc.

> The environment and peace are much bigger issues than taking down and > busting up the tech giants.

Good points, but can we not do all three of these things? (1) Shrink the Defense budget and (2) Invest in renewables including nuclear tech, (3) Tackle Facebook and Google's dominance of net advertising and search and social media and Amazon's of e-commerce and so on …

> Editorial: I want to like Liz Warren. I can related to some of her ideals. > Unfortunately, as a politician she too often comes off as inexperienced, out > of touch and/or naive. This is another one of those times.

?

"Elizabeth Ann Warren (née Herring; born June 22, 1949) is an American politician and academic serving as the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts since 2013. Warren was formerly a prominent scholar specializing in bankruptcy law. A noted progressive leader, Warren has focused on consumer protection, economic opportunity, and the social safety net while in the Senate. Some commentators describe her position as left-wing populism.[2][3][4]

Warren is a graduate of the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School. She taught law at several universities, including the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University.

Warren's initial foray into public policy began in 1995 when she worked to oppose what eventually became a 2005 act restricting bankruptcy access for individuals. Her profile rose due to her forceful stances in favor of more stringent banking regulations following the 2007–2008 financial crisis. She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for which she served as the first Special Advisor."

<comment><USER68> > I'd like to say this is just politics but I'm not even sure it's good > politics. How many people are really concerned about the size of Amazon, > Facebook, Google, etc

Oh, lots and lots.

> If people are that concerned, why do so many people I know have Prime?

The reason so many of the people you know have Prime is because of Amazon's dominant market position.

Yes. But if they are THAT concerned they would be dropping Prime and shopping elsewhere.

The "lots and lots" \- if they exist (you added no link) - are likely to be the Coastal Elites. The same minds who were so out of touch we got DJT. Regardless, to think that Middle America is going to go from "build a wall" to "break up Facebook" is, at best, a stretch. As politics goes, this is a non- issue.

p.a. After the crash of 2008 we were told by many a political "leader" (including the POTUS at the time) how there was too much power concentrated on Wall Street. Liz W was one of those "leaders". Yet there were no breakups, etc. While I wouldn't put SV in the same class as WS, it's hard to imagine anything changing.

<comment><USER69> > Yes. But if they are THAT concerned they would be dropping Prime and > shopping elsewhere.

You know and I know that that's not true. People stick with things because of inertia, convenience, network effects, … To use a tech analogy, many people back in the day hated Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop and server operating system market but very few initially changed to MacOS or Linux. To _this_ day Microsoft still has a stranglehold on the consumer desktop market, the difference being that smartphones and tablets and chromebooks (browser appliances) have given people alternatives.

No, for me (a European) lots and lots refers to the many people outside of the US that would like to see non-US companies taking a bigger slice of the tech pie. Of course Americans are going to have less of a problem with US companies dominating the web.

I hold no firm political allegiance other than it is clear the establishment is happy with the status quo, anybody who promises to tackle concentrations of power in either big media, big tech, big finance, big _you name it_ , gets my approval. If we spent some time talking about concrete issues and policies I bet we'd agree on a lot of things!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Is breaking them up really a priority? What benefit would that have that we couldn't achieve via properly taxing and regulating them in the first place?

<comment><USER71> It would help give China a fairer chance in the AI race. Due to economies of scale and the sheer amount of resources they command, Facebook and Google are able to conduct research that would otherwise be incredibly expensive (e.g. training AlphaZero), and offer incredibly high salaries to lure in researchers. Apparently 80% of all machine learning engineers work at Google or Facebook! Breaking this concentration of machine learning research power would give companies like Baidu, Bytedance and Tencent, which were not broken up and which enjoy strong government support, the chance to catch up and maybe even overtake the remnants of Google/Facebook.

<comment><USER72> It would also give other companies in the US a better shot at the same goal. The focus on China seems unwarranted.

<comment><USER73> I don't think its fair to underestimate China. Breaking up Amazon or Google would benefit China more than the west. Sure Amazon and Google are possibly too large, but their Chinese counter parts are equally as large and direct competitors. The idea behind breaking these companies up is to encourage market competition but that competition already exists and will not be broken up in China. Somehow Warren always has the wrong solutions but is generally correct in identifying a problem.

<comment><USER74> > Breaking up Amazon or Google would benefit China more than the west

China doesn't seem to be having any problems competing, and winning, against Google and Amazon. Baidu and Alibaba are _huge_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I don't see how Amazon is such an threat to consumers?

Genuine question, can someone explain how they are bad? I might give pushback to help get to understanding other people, but I'm not trying to start a war on here:)

</comment><comment><USER76> The tech giants are too big, but there are geopolitical consequences for breaking them up. Countries like Russia and China can target smaller companies much easier than the Goliaths.

</comment><comment><USER77> Reminds me of this post by Richard Stallman, [1].

> Amazon has so much market share that its sheer size distorts the market.

> We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. > If in a certain field a single dominant company is beneficial for society, > that means it is a natural monopoly, and should be served by a regulated > utility.

[1] [https://stallman.org/amazon.html](https://stallman.org/amazon.html)

</comment><comment><USER78> Amazon is eroding brick and mortar mom and pop stores, but it isn't doing that because it's a monopoly (it has 5% of retail sales), it's doing it because people prefer shopping online compared with physical stores. If you broke up Amazon into 5 competing e-commerce sites, strip malls across America would still be closing, and you'd just have 5 Bezos billionaires instead of 1.

And it will do nothing to help the millions of American retail workers who are going to be out of a job, nor the logistics workers who are going to be automated out of jobs.

This is populist demagoguery and scapegoating and not looking at real solutions, like strengthening the social safety net by increasing taxes on these businesses. At least Medical for All, Free College, or UBI have tangible, immediate benefits to people suffering.

Or writing laws on Data Privacy can directly address that issue.

But simply busting up companies? It won't address the underlying economic disruption happening, and if anything, it is likely to simply increase the amount of entities tracking you and risk of hacks.

</comment><comment><USER79> This is an excellent goal, and Paul Graham has articulated the reasoning pretty clearly: [https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008)

> _Here 's how to explain to people the distinction between fighting poverty > and fighting economic inequality. If you're fighting poverty, you might say > "Let's have universal health care." If you're fighting economic inequality, > you have to say "Let's have universal health care. And Larry, please don't > start Google." Otherwise Larry's going to mess up your numbers big time._

Since reading that, I've realized that a major part of my political beliefs is that future Larrys should be _unable_ to start future Googles in their current form, and in particular that I don't believe it's a just use of the powers of government to enable the creation of future Googles.

<comment><USER80> So if a very capable, a hard working, effective person is able to increase their wealth by 20x, and in so doing increases my wealth by 2x without my doing anything, you'd be in favor of using the power of the state to prevent this from happening because it would increase inequality?

<comment><USER81> If you think the debate is purely about relative wealth, you are misunderstanding most of it.

But even still: relative wealth distribution getting too extremely unequal has negative ramifications for any society, regardless of the absolute wealth. But again: that is NOT the issue in this case.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/anti...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/antitrust-3-big- tech) for more perspective, a bunch of discussion about antitrust issues in big tech and NONE, ZERO, NADA of it is about wealth and money in itself.

<comment><USER82> >>> relative wealth distribution getting too extremely unequal has negative ramifications for any society, regardless of the absolute wealth

Like what exactly?

I do not understand why people are upset over extreme wealth. I think Jeff Bezos deserves to be a billionaire and I would not want to live in a society that does not allow people like him succeed and accumulate this sort of money. The quetion is what happens with his wealth in the second and third generation. Historically in fedualism this was passed down to the next generation and the family would keep it until end of the feudalism era. In a capitalistic society it deisappears within 2-3 egenerations, especially with people like Bill Gates. Not sure what is the problem here.

<comment><USER81> I don't have time to answer your specific claim about why _relative_ wealth inequality is a problem even if the poor aren't miserably poor. It's a complex and deep subject. There's resources out there if you are curious. And yes, there's a good share of BAD arguments against wealth inequity (lots of people who are just resentful and superficial and believe even factually wrong things) — so you could spend your time convincing yourself that everyone you disagree with is an idiot. There's no shortage of idiocy. But you can also find the real stuff from smart and expressive people discussing these things better, and that's what you should try to find. Sorry for not picking out citations, I'm already procrastinating too much by writing this.

Now, Jeff Bezos is absolutely a remarkable and unique person who worked very hard and intelligently to get to where he is. But on just the pure matter of "deserve" it's so much more complex than the way you are looking at it. We don't live in a fair world. Look up "just world fallacy". In a world that is quite out of alignment from what we'd have if everyone got what they "deserve", it's simplistic to look at select cases like Bezos and judge from there.

But that's not what this is about AT ALL.

The concept of anti-trust and of managing this stuff is about power. The question is whether it's okay for Bezos and the whole company really to not only be wealthy but have monopoly-like power in the market. I have no reason to believe you checked out the link I posted earlier because you went on and repeated arguments about wealth — and this is NOT about that, not philosophically or legally. It's not even about taking away Bezos' wealth! Anti-trust is not about wealth redistribution, it's _only_ about stopping anti-competitive threats to market competition.

> In a capitalistic society it deisappears within 2-3 generations

Well, that's just factually wrong. Capitalism doesn't just automatically do that, and the evidence doesn't support that claim either. And we don't have any sort of "pure" capitalism in existence to even study anyway. You need to get beyond these superficial specious ideas if you want to understand the reality. Start by treating your presumptions as _hypotheses_ and figure out what evidence would be scientifically strong enough to validate or invalidate them and see how they hold up.

<comment><USER82> > In a capitalistic society it disappears within 2-3 generations

>>> Well, that's just factually wrong.

Really?

[http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose- wealth/](http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/)

[https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-real-reason- bil...](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-real-reason-bill-gates- children-wont-inherit-much-of-his-fortune.html/)

<comment><USER81> Not sure what to make of that first link. The first one is a bunch of quotes about wealthy people worrying that their kids are irresponsible and this one uncited sentence aligned with the headline:

> Indeed, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, > and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth > consultancy.

What is that? Sounds like a marketing claim by a company catering services to the wealthy about how to keep their family wealth. I can't just accept it blindly.

I agree that in the (unusual) case of Gates, he's obviously not just hoarding and passing on his wealth directly, but the upbringing and advantages his kids are getting plus $10 million leaves them still really wealthy compared to nearly anyone else on the planet regardless of the fact that it's a miniscule fraction of Gates' current wealth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I disagree with these proposals, and think the sights should be aimed at companies like Verizon and Comcast, but at least Warren's proposals tend to be coherent. Although, it isn't too hard to be a "policy pacesetter" on the democratic side these days -- they lack any semblance of unified vision, and so far we have been given 3 magical proposals for legislation for fixing all the worlds problem lacking any coherent way to pay for them other than a bunch of magic handwaving and "let's just tax millionaires and billionaires more" \-- the most atrocious of them being the "New Green Deal", and the second most atrocious is the "Medicaid for all"

Given recently how AOC and her cohorts were flat out embarrassed by the NY state budget director and given a lesson in basic financial literacy and economics, I think the freshman and sophomore democrats should probably lay low for a while and learn a thing or two from the adults in the room.

</comment><comment><USER84> What's interesting about this proposal is it goes after "proprietary marketplaces".[1] Anti-trust has historically focused on breaking up huge companies that have acquired/merged with their competition. She's recognizing that another lever of power in the world: owning the platform.

Lots of tech "monopoly" power comes from network effects. Once you're Google or Amazon you don't necessarily need to buy up all the other search engines or ecommerce platforms. They can't even get off the ground.

Also interesting: she doesn't mention Apple at all. Yet they run one of the biggest platforms, and their cut (which they call "service revenue") is one of the highest growth categories for them.

[1] [https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up- big...](https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big- tech-9ad9e0da324c)

</comment><comment><USER85> This is 2019. We have come up with so many correct tech solutions to problems, like inventing the Internet Protocol Suite and so on, where we once needed government. We have email instead of the post office. Desktop printing instead of the printing press. Xerox copiers were a game changer back in the day.

Why do we need government's help to break up these monopolies? When AOL literally was the place everyone went to just be ONLINE, it semed unstoppable. Then came the Web, with its permissionless nature, and over time it completely took over, and led to trillions of dollars of new value. The Web is the plarform on which Google, Amazon, Facebook, built their businesses, companies that would never get permission do that on top of AOL.

Now we need something similar to disrupt Google, Facebook, Amazon. I believe Wordpress was an early start, and indeed powers 30% of all websites today. But you need four things:

1) Open source and permissionless platform

2) A unified Social Operating System with well designed components for user accounts, permissions, realtime notifications, payments etc. like the graphical OSes had windows, menus and so on. A well-designed cathedral architecture like BSD.

3) A permissionless plugin system and marketplace where anyone could develop their own components and package them into plugins and apps, and sell them to communities.

4) A layer where you could go between many different domains and have a seamless social experience. This is key.

I am really passionate about this. I have put my money where my mouth is - <USER3> company Qbix has reinvested half a million dollars over the last seven years to build a platform to do just that.

What I said is just the surface. Please watch this video to understand in depthwhat I mean:

[https://youtu.be/OzXnVSZbvAw](https://youtu.be/OzXnVSZbvAw)

Would love to hear your thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER86> I don't have any insight into the rationale behind the HQ2 search beyond what was reported in the media, but I've long thought that planning for a potential government-forced break up was part of it. A preemptive segregation of business units will help their case if/when this gains some steam.

</comment><comment><USER87> This seems like a terrible thing to campaign on. There are plenty of other more important issues to deal with. Maybe not everyone, but most people I talk to absolutely love Amazon and the convenience it offers them. Definitely not going to win in the court of public opinion.

</comment><comment><USER88> Just my 2 cents: Apple currently offers a great user experience in terms of app quality, stability, design, etc... That's because they have a total control over what can and what can't be uploaded to their app store. They run extensive analysis over each one of the apps that are being submitted to the app store and they reserve their right to reject an app even if the slightest bug occurs. That, at the end of the day, turns into a very positive user experience. My question is: Would it be actually good for the end user if Apple is forced to lose control over the app store?

</comment><comment><USER89> Enforcing the use of open, federated, interoperable standards when they're technically feasible would be a lot more productive than the crude approach of simply breaking up the companies. To the extent that there is a competition concern it's due to network effects, and open, interoperable standards would go a long way towards resolving these. Even for Amazon, it's only the "UX"-related company that needs to be broken away from the rest. That company would then face an incentive to interoperate will all sorts of suppliers on an equitable basis.

<comment><USER90> This would require a level of vision & planning we're not likely to see from political leaders, but I agree this is the best take here.

If the goal of antitrust action is to keep the free market competitive, I think a better way to achieve this than enforcing a breakup of big companies is by legally requiring standards for open protocols that allow for competitors to interface with each other and compete on their _service quality_ rather than their _network size_.

How this would be done is a hard question without an easy answer. But breaking apart Facebook from Whatsapp isn't going to make it any easier for a new social network or a new messaging app to break into the space. Typically new social products can only enter a saturated market by targeting a niche and then expanding (e.g. Signal on a privacy/security focus or Discord on a gaming focus). Enforcing some level of open protocol makes it possible to try a new product without customers giving up because "oh but my friends aren't on here"

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Companies do get spun off all the time, if it's determined to benefit shareholders. Why should the government take on this role? It's doubtful they would make decisions that are in the best fiduciary interest of the stock holders, the employees, and the customers. Generally it's best to let market forces play out. Amazon, Facebook & the Goog are pretty massive _right now_ , but things change quickly. Ten years from now, there may be new behemoths that dwarf these companies even as these companies now dwarf former titans like Microsoft and IBM.

</comment><comment><USER92> I'm curious what people think this would mean for hiring? If all of a sudden there a 8 or 9 smaller, but still quite large, giants competing for talent, I could imagine competing for talent would hit fever pitch.

</comment><comment><USER93> You shouldn't be resolving such issues after the fact. If the FTC or the DOJ AD weren't diminished into such seemingly titular existences, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER94> She complains that the problem is lax enforcement of existing antitrust laws and her solution is, instead of enforcement of existing antitrust laws, radical new antitrust laws that do not focus on conduct or evidence of consumer harm?

Not only do I think the particular policy is ill-conceived, but the preference for legislation when the entire premise is an assessment that existing law is unenforced rather than defective is even more worrying. And I say that as someone who has up to this point seen Warren as probably the strongest 2020 candidate.

</comment><comment><USER95> The more I think about this the more I focus on the Amazon case.

Amazon's core competency is logistics. They would not exist at anything like their current scale if they couldn't do 2-day delivery. That's what really gives them a leg up vs doing a Google search, finding a small e-commerce ship that sells what you want, and getting the product.

Breaking that into an independent service-- if it's possible at all-- would have far more impact, and possibly more positive impact, than anything involving house brands or an ec2 split.

</comment><comment><USER96> I used to work at Amazon and the idea of spinning out Marketplace just seems unworkable. It's like saying that Microsoft should spin out Xbox... they are 100% dependent on each other.

<comment><USER97> The easiest target would be for Amazon to spin out AWS.

<comment><USER98> If it were up to Bezos I bet he'd spin off the retail aspect of Amazon but keep AWS, the inventory/shipping logistics, and all the other infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> I choose not to use Amazon. I choose not to use Facebook.

Very difficult to not interact with Google...

I choose not to use Verizon... however COMCAST is TERRRIBLE and along with Verizon, they have shut down every mom-and-pop ISP and are responsible for the wholesale elimination of robust, in-place copper from the consumer and business markets.

Senator Warren, please add Comcast\Verizon to this list. That would get my vote... either that or slapping Ajit Pai for me next time you see him. Thanks.

<comment><USER100> Do you somehow choose to avoid everything hosted on AWS? How do you avoid the wider societal effects of Facebook, and how do you avoid their collection of data on you via third parties?

<comment><USER99> No I don't (can't) avoid everything hosted on AWS. That's RMS-level commitment. I just don't use them in my work or for projects, and I don't use their marketplace.

I don't avoid the "societal effects" of facebook, I just don't/won't/haven't had a profile. It's not like I would boycott an event if their only RSVP/invite/info page is on facebook, more like voting with my feet when it comes to signing up for and/or utilizing their platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> The real problem here is the culture that the current crop of entrepreneurs grew up in. No one one wan't to take time to build and grow a company anymore as it is unglamorous. Most of them are just looking to generate hype and sell to any Big Tech corp that throws cash at them as soon as possible.

As long as this culture remains in place, breaking big tech companies won't work. New ones will crop up and everything will continue.

</comment><comment><USER102> This is one reason I still support Bernie over Warren, his ideas are more sound, and he has a purpose. I feel like Warren can come off fringe on a lot of things, and is really just trying to make herself appear progressive, she tosses out ideas into the progressive ether to see which ones will 'stick' per se and drops others. Some days she sounds on point and very intelligent, and some days she does shit like this and feels completely out of touch.

She's also very self-serving and has no sense of loyalty to other left-leaning politicians - else she might've backed Bernie from day one in 2016, instead of play things 'safe'. Her playing safe hurt her career more than anything else ever will in my opinion.

That aside, I don't think breaking up google, fb, amazon will do much...if I were to break them up, I think the only thing I'd do is perhaps have them split their cloud services from their other offerings, and maybe media services -- youtube | amazon prime video, but it's small potatoes.

I think a MUCH bigger issue is media consolodation -- when 1-2 CEO's control 80% of the media and thus the 'message' that people see, that's a much scarier proposition.

For example Sinclair Broadcasting I think owns something like 90% of local broadcasting stations now - and they send talking points and control what newscasters say in order to get political messages out - it's basically propaganda that they control, and it's very powerful esp in the wrong hands.

Comcast/nbc/hulu, att/time warner, disney/fox/espn/etc are all companies that probably are more dangerous than google/fb/amazon (w/ the exception that FB really needs to get it's privacy shit together or just die...), and if you're going after big tech why not Apple/Microsoft, Microsoft is as big if not bigger than it was when they had their antitrust case, Apple is the biggest company in the world ? Maybe we should also have a 25BN = auto-breakup for banks, since banks caused the last great recession, and are obviously dangerous when they get too big to fail.

Or maybe instead of breaking up companies we just figure out ways to tax them better -- esp. on speculation and at the investment layer, so that the money they make that 'you - the politician' feel they shouldn't be making is used for the benefit of society as well as enrichment of the CEO and their ilk.

</comment><comment><USER103> You might be able to divide Amazon into two distinct pieces (retail and cloud services), but I don't know how you'd even start with a company like Google or Facebook. Most of the services offered by those two are only justified by the amount of data they provide for ad targeting. You can't take away those services without ruining their ad-revenue model.

</comment><comment><USER104> Amazon is a "marketplace". Like "Google Play" or iTunes. This seems very different situation.

As a progressive, I really want to support Warren but her policies need to solid. I am concerned the left is running off the rails with anti-vaxx, anti- GMO, anti-technology, extreme feminist wackadoodle ideas.

Can't just Bernie just dye his hair and wear a proper suit that fits?

</comment><comment><USER105> Just wondering how weird would it be if someone at the UN proposed to break up "monopolies" like China it the USA itself. And yet, I suppose a good parallel case can be built in support of this.

NOTE: I'm not dissing the monopolies act and understand the dangers. This is just a thought pointing out different yardsticks for corporations and countries.

</comment><comment><USER106> > The story demonstrates why promoting competition is so important: it allows > new, groundbreaking companies to grow and thrive — which pushes everyone in > the marketplace to offer better products and services. Aren't we all glad > that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with > Bing?

Erm. Should we tell her that Google came before Bing?

</comment><comment><USER107> The $25B revenue cut off seems really arbitrary and ignore different types of businesses. Some business (like Walmart) have super high revenues, but relatively small profits. While others are smaller revenue, but super high profits.

I know this proposal is just for tech companies, but it seems like it will create as many problems as it solves.

</comment><comment><USER108> I know that Facebook has instagram and whatsapp, but wouldn't breaking Facebook up leave the still monolithic but waning Facebook proper together? I'm not saying WhatsApp and Instagram aren't massive, but am I wrong in assuming that Facebook is still a monolith regardless if it loses it subsidiaries?

<comment><USER109> Just off the top of my head, maybe FB Markeplace and Messenger get split out into their own companies? Maybe their Live feature get's split off into it's own thing too.

That makes me think that Amazon might have to give up Twitch too

</comment></comment><comment> and-er-son Why is Apple not part of this? The most valuable company!! What apple does with integration of software, hardware, dongle, accessory and walled garden is nothing but a monopoly! The killing of iMessage if you switch etc. Maybe Amazon, Google, FB didn't pay enough money to Warren's election fund.

</comment><comment><USER110> This is great because it starts a conversation about monopoly power that's long been needed.

This I think is one of the understated values of primaries and presidential elections. Even if Warren is elected and unable to get legislation passed, she has moved this particular conversation forward.

</comment><comment><USER111> Warren's original post, _Here's how we can break up Big Tech_ :

[https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up- big...](https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big- tech-9ad9e0da324c)

</comment><comment><USER112> While I agree that we should break apart giant companies (and not just Amazon, telecoms too), the first large entity that we should break apart, is the government.

The only way to stop monopolies from forming is by getting rid of legislation that heavily benefits large businesses.

<comment><USER17> > ... the first large entity that we should break apart, is the government.

If you're talking about the United States of America, it _is_ already broken apart. By design we have three distinct branches, due process, _and_ free speech/press.

<comment><USER113> Not to mention 50 constituent states, each of which has in turn legislative, executive, and judiciary branches.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> "Today's big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy," Warren said in a statement. "They've bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else."

True. On the other hand, big tech companies are the only agencies that are taking on big problems, social and technical. Break up big tech and many things won't get done. No ubiquitous high speed networks, no practical general purpose artificial intelligence, no indexed access to the world's knowledge, no voice interface minions, and so forth. Government seems unable and unwilling to do the sort of things Big Tech does.

Breaking up big tech seems to be the wrong approach and is likely to be more difficult and more destructive than it would appear at first glance. Better to enlist big tech to cooperate and make the world a better place.

</comment><comment><USER115> Of the three I would say Facebook is the most destructive. I don't see articles on Live Science or Science Daily decrying the mental health effects of Amazon or Google, just unfair monopoly implications at Bloomberg and other business sites.

<comment><USER100> Youtube is Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> I'm on the fence about antitrust action in general, but here's an assertion from the article that I think is completely untrue:

"Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with these big tech companies because it's so easy for the big companies to either snap up growing competitors or drive them out of business."

The possibility of being "snapped up" is very good money for venture capitalists instead of waiting a decade for an IPO. So regulating acquisitions by the big players may have a chilling effect on capital and, thereby, tech innovation.

In addition, the first mover effect is very powerful and should not be discounted. For example, the competition between Snapchat and Facebook was not as skewed as the outcome would have you believe. Snapchat had and has a large userbase, and is losing because of mistakes (including not agreeing to very good acquisition offers). I can't personally think of too many other examples of megatitans successfully squashing innovative smaller companies with an equivalent product.

</comment><comment><USER117> This is a really interesting conversation but I really want to read the full proposal. As many have noted, what about AWS? Does Apple's App Store count as a platform? What does the data clause mean? Etc.

</comment><comment><USER118> Will there be enough political will to get this done even if she becomes president? It seems unlikely that such severe measures would be able to pass unless the named companies help dig themselves deeper by not caring about the distrust and deep disappointment in them (Facebook for one doesn't seem to care in the sense of really doing something better).

> He (Szabo) added that he also felt Ms. Warren is "wrong in her assertion > that tech markets lack competition."

That's got to be one of those jokes that go viral. Most of the consumer facing services are heavily concentrated among less than a handful (considering specific areas, and not in general).

It's time at least some of what she calls for gets done!

</comment><comment><USER119> This topic is strongly connected with decentralization technologies since they are the most viable way that we will be able to replace the large networks of the technopolies.

</comment><comment><USER120> This thread defines 'whataboutism'. It's supposed to be about Warren's new 3 page tech regulation bill but has more than 600 comments rehashing telecom regulation issues discussed thousands of times, without engaging a single point raised by Warren. This looks like a derail.

There are urgent issues with Google and monopoly, search, chrome, amp, android and youtube and once you combine that with Facebook a toxic predatory surveillance capitalism model based on harvesting and collating private data to build dossiers that is ominous for any free society.

But for the tech community on the frontlines of this project the old issues of Comcast and Verizon unresolved inspite of decades of heated debate are more urgent. If anyone doubted Upton Sinclars famous insight here is the evidence.

</comment><comment><USER52> > "as well as legislation that would prohibit platforms from both offering a > marketplace for commerce and participating in that marketplace."

This sounds very fair to me, India has passed a similar law recently - [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/technology/india- amazon-w...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/technology/india-amazon- walmart-online-retail.html)

</comment><comment><USER52> What about closing Tax loopholes, such that Apple and Amazon pay their fair share and Netflix does not pay zero tax ?

<comment><USER29> There are a million other things which should also be done.

Saying "What about these other things?" isn't particularly constructive to the discussion of this proposal.

There's nothing in it which precludes changes to the tax structure as a separate proposal.

<comment><USER52> To clarify, what I mean here is that there may be other things that should probably be prioritized over splitting tech giants. There is usually limited political capital a POTUS has and if Warren had the votes, in my opinion fixing tax structure should higher on her list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER121> The problem isn't the tech giants but how we are seen as cash cows of information and not as people.

</comment><comment><USER122> Miss the whole point. The world largest is not American firm. Not even in IT.

Break yours and let others do it.

</comment><comment><USER123> What monopoly do these companies have? What customer harm is resultant from their monopolies?

</comment><comment><USER124> Most people are on the same page about ISPs so I will skip that. Social networks should be public utility companies or else heavily regulated and treansparent to avoid censorship or what is referred to as surveillance capitalism. Networks should be open for third parties in a regulated manner after a certain size threshold. This would for example prevent Amazon from creating a massive delivery network in a competition free environment and then use it to squash any new competition for decades and decades. People might have a choice now to use Amazon or not but as delivery prices decline the options shrink to the point that you might not have any realistic alternative depivery channel. However with current US political system that has money interest and regulations tied in a biased way towards concentrated capital these will likely not happen.

</comment><comment><USER125> She's lost my support with this - too far off the rails.

</comment><comment><USER126> Breaking AWS away from Amazon might not be a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER127> Honest question, not trying to make a statement...

Is this really a left/liberal/progressive/dem position and if so why?

I'm mainly on the right and so I don't have a lot of insight into why Sen. Warren would be taking this position. To be frank I kinda would have expected something like this from Trump, not from her. Tech companies like Amazon seem to be left leaning (just looking at Bezos and his investment in WaPo). Wouldn't Warren want strong left leaning tech companies? Why would she want to go up against them?

Again I'm not trying to trigger anyone or make any political assertions. I generally don't understand and would love the input of others for familiar with Sen. Warren's platform.

</comment><comment><USER128> So Democrats are sticking to their guns with their belief that their problem was not going Left enough instead of realising to be more pragmatic and listen to people instead of ideologies.

<comment> pickle-wizard Yep, she just lost my vote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER129> if you're going to break them up, it's going to be a lot tougher to keep track of their "anti consumer" behaviour

</comment><comment><USER130> I like Warren. Also, I believe something needs to be done about these tech companies enormous influence over information flow. I don't think the solution is breaking them up.

</comment><comment><USER131> Does legislature like this actually have a chance at passing? Or is this just bombastic liberal rhetoric to ignite the campaign trail?

</comment><comment><USER132> Why is Microsoft never mentioned?!

</comment><comment><USER133> If you came here to read the HN comments about this topic, I very highly recommend listening to this podcast that I've enjoyed yesterday [0], it's economist Russell Roberts interviewing Michael Munger; the topic is "crony capitalism".

[0]: [http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony- capitalism/](http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism/)

</comment><comment><USER134> Seems like Democratic candidates are clamoring over each other to be further left, and I don't quite understand it. I supported Bernie in 2016, and even he is now too far left for my tastes.

Democrats lost the centrist vote in 2016, not the left, and if they don't take a hard right turn after the nomination we'll have 4 more years of Trump.

<comment><USER135> > Democrats lost the centrist vote in 2016, not the left

They lost huge numbers of working class manufacturing industry workers in the Midwest, who perceived HC as a tool of Wall Street, and rightly or wrongly, instrumental in the secular economic decline of their jobs and communities. This was literally reflected in a schism of working class vs professional class counties in the midwest, with the former going for DJT and the latter going to HC [1]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin didn't swing to DJT because centrist's didn't have a candidate that spoke to their concerns - that candidate was definitely HC. Even many centrist Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for DJT voted for her.

Those states swung because DJT at least spoke to the working class' economic concerns in a way that at the time seemed authentic, while also invoking their repressed cultural anxieties about demographic and social changes.

Democrats should stay the heck away from the racism and xenophobia that motivated part of his coalition, but they would be fools to ignore the economically-left sentiment that put him in office.

And since DJT's actual economic policy has turned out to be the same Republican trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy approach, the Democrats have an opportunity to expose that and run against it.

[1] [https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2016/11/macomb_county_cou...](https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2016/11/macomb_county_could_represent.html) [https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/20...](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/09/trump- won-michigan/93551192/)

<comment><USER110> This. There's great opportunity ahead and calls for the Dems to lead with anything other than bold policies don't make sense.

Running on strengthening healthcare was primary among many reasons for their success in the Midterms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> if they are going to break up amazon why dont spin out AWS?

</comment><comment><USER137> 2008, Financial Collapse, Too Big To Fail, Banks Got Bigger 2018, Facebook Helps Trump, Too Influential, Break Up Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER28> Posted below, but this just paywallspam for Elizabeth Warren's own blog post on the subject: [https://medium.com/@teamwarren/9ad9e0da324c](https://medium.com/@teamwarren/9ad9e0da324c)

</comment><comment><USER138> Whoops. Guess she won't be winning then...

<comment><USER139> If, as usual, people are voting heavily against their own interests and more according to the lobbyist propaganda fed by economics 101 professors, then you are likely on point.

<comment><USER140> what lobbyists are lobbying to break up big tech companies? Not everything is propaganda.

<comment><USER141> Telco, Walmart, any company that would rather have a big brand with name association on the hot seat instead of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER142> The US govt has some of the biggest waste I've ever seen. Tens to hundreds of millions on failed research thrusts that were extreme long-shots from the beginning. Govt employees that "rest and vest" to extremes, working 20 actual hrs a week at a FTE position and getting pension at 55. It puts to shame actual hardworking Americans who are outside the elitist bubble.

It's hard to argue when the same side benefitting from big govt wants to print money to "solve" all their problems and shut down opposing virwpoints with such vitrol. One side is actively extatic by shutting down tens of thousands of prospective jobs while not getting that funding and revenue of their projects comes from those jobs.

</comment><comment><USER143> This will go exactly nowhere. I want Cheeto out as much as anyone else but if the democrats put up Warren in 2020 I'm not going to be happy.

</comment><comment><USER144> I don't exactly like her but this is a very valid point. Not like she will get the necessary support in a bought out congress (both sides)

</comment><comment><USER145> Big businesses are the drivers of the American economy. Breaking them up will imperil the economy.

</comment><comment><USER85> Why do we need the government's help to break up Amazon? We need open source alternatives, line OpenStreetMap to break up Google Maps monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER146> If you did not build it, you gont get to break it. How about we split Pentagon into 5 pieces instead ?

<comment><USER147> Conversely, if you didn't build the Internet, you don't get to break it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER148> If we're worried about concentration of power, invasions of privacy, and collection of private data, the by far biggest problem is Warren's own employer.

Once we've broken up the federal government, we can start worrying about these much smaller and less powerful entities!

</comment><comment> throwaway-1283 I'd have to see the details, but I'm pro something like breaks up the _talent_ monopoly that FAANGs have, especially in the Bay Area.

Early stage startups can't compete for talent in the Bay Area. If breaking up giants creates more competition for talent, then I'm supportive.

</comment><comment><USER149> Microsoft is now worth more than Apple, and it used to be in the target of government regulators. What has it done right?

<comment><USER150> I'm not sure Apple can claim a monopoly the same way those other three can. How would you "break up" Apple when their business is largely focused to one market that has strong competition?

<comment><USER151> I would argue that the iOS platform (HW/SW and app store) certainly meets the >25 billion annual revenue specified by Warren and should be split from other Apple services, such as Apple Music and rumored upcoming Apple streaming service.

For example, Spotify would have to pay 15-30% of its monthly subscription fee if user paid it through the IAP (which is why Spotify doesn't offer that option), whereas Apple music can do so without the 15-30% fee. Also, Spotify is not allowed to include a link to its website to pay for subscription, because it's against the Apple app store rules. The same applies to Netflix and other digital content/service providers. Apple either gets the 15-30% price advantage, or it gets the added convenience of In-App purchase for the service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER152> Just say "no" to more government manipulation of the market. In fact, we need to rollback a lot of the ways government distorts markets today. See, for example: regulatory capture[1] and patent evergreening[2].

Too often it's government intervention which _creates_ the very "problems" that they then turn around and claim to be trying to solve.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening)

</comment><comment><USER153> Anyone who thinks Google is out there demoting Yelp results is a moron. The much simpler explanation that Yelp is a cancer that everyone hates is more likely. It's sad that Warren falls for FUD like this and we shouldn't forget that these memes originate from Microsoft-funded AstroTurf campaigns designed to mislead European regulators, which worked because eurocrats are gullible. The last thing we need in this election are people without the critical thinking skills needed to see through a disinformation campaign. We need a candidate who can clearly see that Google owning a small thermostat maker is not one of the country's main issues.

</comment><comment><USER154> Here we go, buckle up. With the amount of power democrats are likely to consolidate in the next few elections there could be some serious movement on this if it becomes a priority for the party.

I think the big three are way too powerful and need to be broken up, but doing so intelligently is a tricky problem that I don't have much faith in government tackling.

Zuckerberg integrating all the services yesterday seems to be a transparent attempt to short circuit splitting the company along these service lines, he knows this is coming. I'll bet $100 he'll soon be talking about how it's impossible to split out insta from facebook because of database keys and integrated AI or whatever.

<comment><USER34> I don't think it'll be a priority because I'm not really sure if this is a real thing that Warren believes or if she's just throwing this out there to see if it has legs.

<comment><USER155> If someone other than Warren gets elected, it could very well get put on the back burner. But this is defintely what Warren believes. When she was a professor at Harvard or the head of the CFPB, cracking down on very large, very powerful corporations was always her focus, whether via anti-trust or other means.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER156> If there has ever been a monopoly, those 3 companies are it.

I wont speak for social media and search, but Amazon has a complete stranglehold on retail in the United States. People keep saying 'retail is dead', thats bullshit, Amazon has a monopolistic stranglehold on the selling of all goods. If that weren't the case, small shop brick and mortar shopping would still be a thing.

<comment><USER157> Yeah no one cares about monopolies anymore. But how exactly do you split up a search engine for instance?

<comment><USER158> You silo the search engine segment of the business as one company, the advertising segment as a separate business, etc etc. Alphabet is more than just the Google search engine at this point.

<comment><USER159> Wouldn't the loss of close integration between Google's ads business and services decrease their respective values though?

<comment><USER160> Ideally it would directly and immediately decrease their values by the amount they were effectively extracting due to their monopoly position.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>