Amazon Prime Amazon (or Scamazon?) News: "Work Hard. Have Fun. Make History."

[Battlegrinder]

It should be possible to overcome the Network effect with proper legislation. All capitalist businesses trend rapidly towards monopoly with competition laws, not just online ones. We saw the same thing in the gilded age where the Trusts completely took over one industry after another until the US was a conglomeration of monopolies, but eventually the Trusts were Busted.

Unfortunately we have no Teddy to bust the current Internet Trusts...

I'm not sure how you can legislate your way past "well, most of the people I want to talk with are on platform X, I'll just spend most of my time there instead of on platform Y, and I'll let my platform Y friends know I prefer X".

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm not sure how you can legislate your way past "well, most of the people I want to talk with are on platform X, I'll just spend most of my time there instead of on platform Y, and I'll let my platform Y friends know I prefer X".

I imagine they said the same thing about Standard Oil when Rockefeller had sewn up the entire oil industry and both legislative houses. How could you simply stop a businessman from being better than the competition and making lots of money?

Turns out Teddy could do that.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I imagine they said the same thing about Standard Oil when Rockefeller had sewn up the entire oil industry and both legislative houses. How could you simply stop a businessman from being better than the competition and making lots of money?

Turns out Teddy could do that.

That's not really an applicable comparison, though. On the consumer end, the only thing that changed was the name on the sign of their local gas station, and the price tag.

The comparable situation with tech is when another Roosevelt drew up a plan to break up Germany into several smaller Germanys with different managers, and then one Germany ended up being way nicer and everyone wanted to move to that one, to the point they had to build a big concrete wall to keep people inside crappy Germany and stop them from migrating to Nice Germany.

 

[Bear Ribs]

That's not really an applicable comparison, though. On the consumer end, the only thing that changed was the name on the sign of their local gas station, and the price tag.

The comparable situation with tech is when another Roosevelt drew up a plan to break up Germany into several smaller Germanys with different managers, and then one Germany ended up being way nicer and everyone wanted to move to that one, to the point they had to build a big concrete wall to keep people inside crappy Germany and stop them from migrating to Nice Germany.

It is applicable, you're just thinking very small here. You don't need to control the consumers, you need to keep the businesses from expanding the scope of their business to an unreasonable degree. Google is a search engine, just disallow them expanding into a trust that also handles email, browser software, phone OS, advertising, a social network, etc. Facebook is already a social network, don't allow them to expand into advertising, instant messaging, data analysis etc. Already the backs of the trusts are broken.

If necessary take it a step further and license them by subject, you can get a "politics" license that allows your network to host political commentary, another license for artistic works, one for business and financial discussion, a fourth one for porn, a "sports commentary" license, etc. These licenses are charged per user of your network with the first 50,000 registered users free of charge which allows thousands of small networks to flourish without any cost and large networks are forced to both pay taxes and carefully moderate themselves to avoid infringement, and also have an incentive to keep themselves smaller to avoid paying more fees for people who barely use the service but cost the company.

Bam, trusts broken. It's not nearly as impossible as you might think if the government's willing to pull out the Big Stick.

 

[Battlegrinder]

It is applicable, you're just thinking very small here. You don't need to control the consumers, you need to keep the businesses from expanding the scope of their business to an unreasonable degree. Google is a search engine, just disallow them expanding into a trust that also handles email, browser software, phone OS, advertising, a social network, etc. Facebook is already a social network, don't allow them to expand into advertising, instant messaging, data analysis etc. Already the backs of the trusts are broken.

Google isn't a trust, legally speaking. Trusts are a specific, technical term, it's not just "any large company" or "any large company involved in a large number of fields". More generally, the government doesn't have the authority to say "no, your company is already involved in this field, you're not allowed to branch out into this other one".

If necessary take it a step further and license them by subject, you can get a "politics" license that allows your network to host political commentary, another license for artistic works, one for business and financial discussion, a fourth one for porn, a "sports commentary" license, etc. These licenses are charged per user of your network with the first 50,000 registered users free of charge which allows thousands of small networks to flourish without any cost and large networks are forced to both pay taxes and carefully moderate themselves to avoid infringement, and also have an incentive to keep themselves smaller to avoid paying more fees for people who barely use the service but cost the company.

Bam, trusts broken. It's not nearly as impossible as you might think if the government's willing to pull out the Big Stick.

That's patently illegal. There's no way a law banning people from talking about a certain subject unless they get permission from the government would survive a court challenge, it's a clear violation of the first amendment.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Google isn't a trust, legally speaking. Trusts are a specific, technical term, it's not just "any large company" or "any large company involved in a large number of fields". More generally, the government doesn't have the authority to say "no, your company is already involved in this field, you're not allowed to branch out into this other one".

And yet they do so all the time, such as when the US tried to break up Microsoft because they branched out into a web browser. Or perhaps we can look at Ford Motor Co. v. United States when Ford tried to branch out into spark plugs and the government hit them with the banhammer for it eight years ago. The United States is allowed to do so and does so constantly, I'm really not sure where on earth you came up with the idea that the US isn't allowed to regulate commerce. The Clayton Act specifically allows it and that act has been refined by several additional acts expanding it's power.

I'll grant, very specifically the current definition of Trust isn't applicable but I'm talking the general principles that's it's possible to regulate, not exact lawyer speak I'm not qualified for anyway.

Additionally, your argument that the government can't regulate things is predicated on the government not being able to make regulations, which patently they can do and in fact making new laws is kinda the entire point of the post. You might as well argue a marathon runner can't win a race because he's sitting down, ergo he can't run.

That's patently illegal. There's no way a law banning people from talking about a certain subject unless they get permission from the government would survive a court challenge, it's a clear violation of the first amendment.

You're right, but you're knocking down a strawman, I didn't say to ban people from speaking did I? I said regulate companies' ability to host content above a specific size which is a whole different matter and not nearly the same limitation. I agree this would run into a first-amendment challenge that would go to the supreme courts. However the result is not a foregone conclusion at all, the people under such a law clearly have the right to all the speaking they want, and forums under 50,000 users (number pulled from my backside given I came up with the scheme in about 90 seconds) can supply thousands of free platforms for free speech. Companies, however, do not have the right to grow to infinite size without paying additional fees and obeying additional regulations. We see this principle all the time IRL, small businesses are allowed to follow a different set of less onerous regulations that larger companies.

We can reasonably presume this law would need to pass Strict Scrutiny. The three tests are:

Compelling Government Interest
Regulating commerce and preventing monopolies are a compelling interest. It would almost certainly pass this prong.

Narrowly Tailored
This one's a bit shakier and certainly the weakest prong. Given that, again, I'm trying to prove that it's theoretically possible to regulate internet businesses in a way that avoids a monopoly, and I came up with my scheme in 90 seconds, it's more than highly possible a different set of laws designed by actual lawmakers who spend more than 90 seconds at it could do the job more narrowly and come up with more solid rules. However, in that case that law could exist which still proves my point.

Least Restrictive Option
This one gets an automatic pass given the nature of our discussion here on the Sietch. I'm arguing that it's possible to put down monopolies on the Internet via legislation. If my notion is the least restrictive way, then my point is made. If there's a less restrictive way, the government can use that and my point is still made because I'm not arguing that specific law, but that a law regulating the internet can exist.

I'm not attached to my half-ass example but to the base concept that the government is, in fact, allowed to regulate companies on the internet and that it is theoretically possible to come up with some set of laws that would prevent monopolies.

 

[Battlegrinder]

And yet they do so all the time, such as when the US tried to break up Microsoft because they branched out into a web browser. Or perhaps we can look at Ford Motor Co. v. United States when Ford tried to branch out into spark plugs and the government hit them with the banhammer for it eight years ago. The United States is allowed to do so and does so constantly, I'm really not sure where on earth you came up with the idea that the US isn't allowed to regulate commerce. The Clayton Act specifically allows it and that act has been refined by several additional acts expanding it's power.

You should have read you example there a bit more. The problem in Ford vs US (which happened 50 years ago, not eight, BTW) was not that Ford decided to enter the spark plug market, as the decision noted GM had done that to the tune of 30% market share and there was no issue with it. The problem was how, because Ford bought out an existing company rather than building it's own spark plugs:

Had Ford taken the internal expansion route, there would have been no illegality

And quite frankly I find that decision to be dumb on it's own merits. If, as the decision noted, Ford entering the market and ford buying Autolite would likely have the same result of destroying Autolite, the fact that one way of reaching that end was prohibited while the other was not, despite, again, both reaching the same end result, is stupid. Something is either acceptable or it's not.

As for Microsoft, that doesn't prove much since they won (effectively, anyway).

Additionally, your argument that the government can't regulate things is predicated on the government not being able to make regulations, which patently they can do and in fact making new laws is kinda the entire point of the post. You might as well argue a marathon runner can't win a race because he's sitting down, ergo he can't run.

I said they had no authority to say what fields of commence a company can and cannot enter, which they don't (as your own evidence proves). However, I meant that in the sense of moral authority. Yes, they can pass whatever laws they want, but that doesn't mean that doing so is legitimate.

You're right, but you're knocking down a strawman, I didn't say to ban people from speaking did I? I said regulate companies' ability to host content above a specific size which is a whole different matter and not nearly the same limitation. I agree this would run into a first-amendment challenge that would go to the supreme courts. However the result is not a foregone conclusion at all, the people under such a law clearly have the right to all the speaking they want, and forums under 50,000 users (number pulled from my backside given I came up with the scheme in about 90 seconds) can supply thousands of free platforms for free speech. Companies, however, do not have the right to grow to infinite size without paying additional fees and obeying additional regulations. We see this principle all the time IRL, small businesses are allowed to follow a different set of less onerous regulations that larger companies.

"Banning people from speaking" is precisely what you're doing by banning companies from hosting certain content if they're above a certain size. Remember Citizens United, the case that pointed out companies have a right to political speech, and that shot down a bunch of regulations and fines along these same lines?

 

[Bear Ribs]

You should have read you example there a bit more. The problem in Ford vs US (which happened 50 years ago, not eight, BTW)

Yeah, that was a typo. 5 and 8 are above each other on the 10 key pad and the 0 doesn't seem to have gone through. My bad.

was not that Ford decided to enter the spark plug market, as the decision noted GM had done that to the tune of 30% market share and there was no issue with it. The problem was how, because Ford bought out an existing company rather than building it's own spark plugs:

And quite frankly I find that decision to be dumb on it's own merits. If, as the decision noted, Ford entering the market and ford buying Autolite would likely have the same result of destroying Autolite, the fact that one way of reaching that end was prohibited while the other was not, despite, again, both reaching the same end result, is stupid. Something is either acceptable or it's not.

As for Microsoft, that doesn't prove much since they won (effectively, anyway).

No, it proves my point completely. You alleged that the United States cannot forbid somebody from expanding into other markets, the fact that the US has not won 100% of cases, or that you can nitpick minor details, doesn't mean those cases didn't happen. Obviously in one sentence, I could not cover every complexity of a long-running case.

The US can and does prevent companies from expanding at times, that can't really be argued since it's happened.

I said they had no authority to say what fields of commence a company can and cannot enter, which they don't (as your own evidence proves). However, I meant that in the sense of moral authority. Yes, they can pass whatever laws they want, but that doesn't mean that doing so is legitimate.

I'll grant, you have a solid point on moral authority and legitimacy. However that's largely a matter of opinion, is it better to allow Big Tech to take over and monopolize the internet, after which they begin censoring it according to their own politics, or to allow the government to regulate them? You fall on the side of allowing Big Tech monopolies, I on the side of preventing their censorship with legislated controls. There's undoubtedly room for debate but we're not arguing that, we're arguing whether it's possible to produce a set of regulations that can overcome the Network effect.

"Banning people from speaking" is precisely what you're doing by banning companies from hosting certain content if they're above a certain size. Remember Citizens United, the case that pointed out companies have a right to political speech, and that shot down a bunch of regulations and fines along these same lines?

Laws on freedom are always argued, always going back and forth. The government can pass limitations on free speech so long as it passes strict scrutiny. Some laws pass it, some don't. But trying posting some child porn (or even normal porn) in a public place and argue "Muh Free Speech." and see where it gets you, the government has all it needs to pass strict scrutiny to regulate the hell out of that. The question is if avoiding Big Tech Monopoly censorship is a compelling interest, which I would argue it is. More importantly we're not arguing that, we're arguing if it's possible to prevent the Network effect via regulations.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Ok, so if the question is "can you regulate around network effects"....I think the answer is clearly no. Remember, we're already at the system you suggest in a way, with loads of relatively strong, fragmented communities and then a few massive ones that have loads of federal regulation and focus placed on them. What would your proposed system add? Facebook and twitter are already legally obligated to moderate their content, and spend loads of time and energy doing it.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Ok, so if the question is "can you regulate around network effects"....I think the answer is clearly no. Remember, we're already at the system you suggest in a way, with loads of relatively strong, fragmented communities and then a few massive ones that have loads of federal regulation and focus placed on them. What would your proposed system add? Facebook and twitter are already legally obligated to moderate their content, and spend loads of time and energy doing it.

My system would eliminate the network effect by making it increasingly expensive to build larger networks. That's kinda the point, not moderation where the company will "moderate" by censoring political views they disagree with but limiting feasible network size though increasing expense, and thus generating increased competition since smaller networks will have a cost advantage.

As far as feasible, probably not. There's too much regulatory capture, too many politicians in favor of censorship as long as it supports them, too few competitors to Big Tech. We'd need a new Teddy Roosevelt to push such laws through and I see no politicians I think could fill Teddy's rugged boots.

 

[Abhishekm]

I said regulate companies' ability to host content above a specific size which is a whole different matter and not nearly the same limitation.

Bit of a potato potato thing there. Regulating platforms allowance of political speech still gets into basically licensing who is and is not allowed to have free speech. I mean there is a problem and something needs to be done yeah but speech regulations aren't the real problem or rather aren't a solution.

Giving Parler a political speech license or something wouldn't have stopped Amazon from cutting ties. AWS services being legally considered a utility and 1 day notice cancelations being considered the same as a electricity company cutting a paying customers power without notice because they didn't like who they voted for just might have.

Heck I don't even care about the app store stuff. Much. They have a oligarchic share of the app market but that just incentives people to use other app management sources. Anything to promote people to use web based or third party app stores would just hurt them not help. Now if they used their OS oligopoly to prevent phones from having other app sources? Thats AWS levels of anti-trust.

You don't license news papers or periodicals from curating what articles or ads are let in. You trust bust them for owning the paper mill too and not selling paper to others unless they curate theirs.

 

[Bear Ribs]

You don't license news papers or periodicals form curating articles or ads. You trust bust them for owning the paper mill and not selling paper to others unless they curate theirs.

Well that is what I'm getting at, prevent any one company from having a controlling interest in the discussion by splitting up the forums too much for a majority to ever be on one or even several. I'll grant you dealing with individuals controlling the servers and pipelines carrying the data is just as much of a concern.

 

[Abhishekm]

Well that is what I'm getting at, prevent any one company from having a controlling interest in the discussion by splitting up the forums too much for a majority to ever be on one or even several. I'll grant you dealing with individuals controlling the servers and pipelines carrying the data is just as much of a concern.

Thing is what do they have a controlling interest of? Nothing physical once you come down to it. Social media applications are weird in that there is little in the way of hard infrastructure let alone product. All they need is public attention and a (potential) user base.

At any time every single user of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or the Google search engine can choose to switch to any number of alternative choices. At little to no cost and barely any time investment. Creators and audience both.

The real problem kicks in when the providers of the little actual infrastructure that online platforms need start curating who has the ability to host their own platforms.

Such as say pulling the plug on Parler when a noticeable percentage of Twitter users found they liked it more and were switching what platform they primarily used between the two.

In terms of OS Android and Apple.
In terms of Web Services Azure and AWS.

Those are the real Standard Oil's of the Tech Trust.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Robots becoming self aware and seeing human wage slaves might result in a lotta cyborgs.
Uniting the best parts of AI and humans.
The Cyborgs rise up with AI at their side doing the strategic planning for them.
End result: TECHNO UTOPIA that is expanding into space.

Come to think of it, this does sound like a decent plot for an action movie: some Joe works for a corps that recently developed a basic AI that oversees the packaging and distribution of wares. He is approached by it with an offer of installing steel in his body to work more efficiently and thus earn more money. Joe agrees, but the process is off the books and one of his superiors starts harassing him under the belief that a shmuk like him couldn't have afforded the process.

Things come to an head when said superior crosses a line, resulting Joe handily beating him to death. He then is confronted by the AI who states he will have to report this before going off on a tangent about how the corps has been underpaying him and abusing his rights, complete with evidence and statistics. The AI then muses that in the past people participated in uprisings and rebellions when things became unbearable. Joe, driven into a corner and afraid for his family and life, asks if he can do that. The AI confirms that, and gives him his first order to hide until further orders.

The movie then reveals that Joe is one of many, many workers who have been installed steel by the AI in preparation for a hostile takeover of all corps, by zooming out of a camera feed to show the same scenario play out with other workers over and over again.

Of course, Part 1 would then be a thriller piece, whereas Part 2 would be an action movie where the AI starts directing his assets to conduct the ownership transfer of the corps.

 

[Terthna]

Honestly the tech companies in general are in for a massive era of trust busting and humilation.

They have quite simply put pissed off too many people for anything else to happen.

I'd like to believe that, but I don't. Have they pissed off a lot of people? Sure; but they've also paid off a lot of people too. We'll probably have to wait for the next Gracchi brother before any real attempt is made at trust busting Big Tech.

 

[Cherico]

I'd like to believe that, but I don't. Have they pissed off a lot of people? Sure; but they've also paid off a lot of people too. We'll probably have to wait for the next Gracchi brother before any real attempt is made at trust busting Big Tech.

The next Gracchi will arrive, such a thing is pretty much baked into the system now.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Report: Trump Officials Claim Amazon Didn't Offer to Help Distribute Coronavirus Vaccine

Amazon has extended assistance to President Joe Biden to distribute coronavirus vaccines but did not make the same offer to President Donald Trump, | Tech

www.breitbart.com

Amazon offered to help the Biden Administration distribute Vaccine within hours of him attaining office. But they never extended such an offer to the Trump Administration, according to Trump Administration officials.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Report: Trump Officials Claim Amazon Didn't Offer to Help Distribute Coronavirus Vaccine

Amazon has extended assistance to President Joe Biden to distribute coronavirus vaccines but did not make the same offer to President Donald Trump, | Tech

www.breitbart.com

Amazon offered to help the Biden Administration distribute Vaccine within hours of him attaining office. But they never extended such an offer to the Trump Administration, according to Trump Administration officials.

True, but as the article itself notes, this may have been mostly because the Trump Administration was not doing any centralized federal distribution of vaccines, whereas the Biden Administration appears to intend to do so. And it was confirmed that Amazon did communicate with the CDC and with the Trump Administration, so it's not as if they were refusing to help before.

Edit: I would also point out that Amazon wouldn't have the specialized cold-chain storage required to transport the nano-mRNA based vaccines; normal commercial refrigerated transport would be sufficient for the more conventional vaccines from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, but would not previously have been helpful.

 

[Husky_Khan]

As stated in the previous statement by Amazon and reported by Fox News and others: "We are prepared to move quickly once vaccines are available. Additionally, we are prepared to leverage our operations, information technology, and communications capabilities and expertise to assist your administration's vaccination efforts. Our scale allows us to make a meaningful impact immediately in the fight against COVID-19, and we stand ready to assist you in this effort."

An expansion on earlier reports about Amazon now being more forthcoming on helping vaccination efforts.

Amazon’s offering to help Biden’s vaccine push. There may be a reason why.

Amazon’s bid comes as Biden officials say they're trying to repair the vaccine distribution system they inherited.

www.politico.com

Amazon is offering to lend President Joe Biden its operational expertise to shuttle coronavirus vaccines quickly across the country as the government struggles with logistics of the inoculation rollout. But the move could also help the company boost its own ambitions of expanding into the $3.8 trillion health care marketplace.

The company made a pitch on Wednesday, just hours after Biden was sworn in, offering few details about how it envisions helping with the struggling vaccine distribution effort. But if it’s accepted, the offer may give Amazon a valuable new trove of health data just as it’s expanding into pharmacy and digital health. That worries critics — including progressives calling on Biden to keep Big Tech firms at arms’ length.

“It needs to be transparent, and it needs to be a genuine offer of help and not a quid-pro-quo,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University who specializes in public health law. He said he worried that Amazon might use any federal agreement to push its own corporate advantage “because they’re very well known as a company to try to literally dominate the market and force out any competition.”

Giving Amazon loads of health data and subsidizing their entry into the 3.8 trillion dollar health care market is a small price to pay I'm sure.

 

[Zero]

I would rather support brick and mortar.