• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
www.nytimes.com

Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google Prepare for Their ‘Big Tobacco Moment’ (Published 2020)

The tech C.E.O.s will appear together at a congressional hearing on Wednesday to argue that their companies do not stifle competition.

After lawmakers collected hundreds of hours of interviews and obtained more than 1.3 million documents about Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, their chief executives will testify before Congress on Wednesday to defend their powerful businesses from the hammer of government.

The captains of the New Gilded Age — Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google — will appear together before Congress for the first time to justify their business practices. Members of the House judiciary's antitrust subcommittee have investigated the internet giants for more than a year on accusations that they stifled rivals and harmed consumers.
The hearing is the government's most aggressive show against tech power since the pursuit to break up Microsoft two decades ago. It is set to be a bizarre spectacle, with four men who run companies worth a total of around $4.85 trillion — and who include two of the world's richest individuals — primed to argue that their businesses are not really that powerful after all.

And it will be a first in another way: Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Cook will all be testifying via videoconference, rather than rising side-by-side for a swearing-in at a witness table in Washington. Perhaps appropriately, their reckoning will be broadcast online.
"It has the feeling of tech's Big Tobacco moment," said Gigi Sohn, a former senior adviser at the Federal Communications Commission and a fellow at Georgetown University's law school, referring to the 1994 congressional appearance of top executives of the seven largest American tobacco companies, who said they did not believe that cigarettes were addictive.

The hearing, which caps a 13-month investigation by the House subcommittee, will be closely watched for clues that could advance other antitrust cases against the companies. The Federal Trade Commission, for one, is preparing to depose Mr. Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives in its 13-month probe of the social network. The Justice Department may soon unveil a case against Google. And an investigation into Apple by state attorneys general also appears to be advancing.
The length of the hearing may also be prolonged since the antitrust issues facing Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon are complex and vastly different.

Amazon is accused of abusing its role as both a retailer and a platform hosting third-party sellers on its marketplace. Apple has been accused of unfairly using its clout over its App Store to block rivals and to force apps to pay high commissions. Rivals have said Facebook has a monopoly in social networking. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is dealing with multiple antitrust allegations because of Google's dominance in online advertising, search and smartphone software.

Democrats may also veer off the topic of antitrust and bring up concerns about misinformation on social media. Some Republicans are expected to sidetrack discussion with their concerns of liberal bias at the Silicon Valley companies and accusations that conservative voices are censored.
For the chief executives, the hearing will be a test of how they perform under fire. Mr. Bezos, 56, has not previously testified to Congress, while Mr. Cook, 59, and Mr. Pichai, 48, have both testified once before. Mr. Zuckerberg, 36, the youngest of the group, has the distinction of being the veteran: He has answered questions at three congressional hearings in the past two years as Facebook has dealt with issues such as election interference and privacy violations.
For weeks, the tech giants have also waged a lobbying battle to soften any blows. All four chief executives planned to call lawmakers on the House subcommittee in the days before the hearing, said three people with knowledge of the preparations who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Big Tech's rivals have also jockeyed to have their gripes brought up at the hearing, even if for just a few minutes. The House subcommittee has been flooded with proposed questions, documents and letters from the companies' competitors, according to congressional staff and rivals.
"The C.E.O.s don't want to be testifying. Even having this collective hearing creates a sense of quasi-guilt just because of who else has gotten called in like this — Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Banks," said Paul Gallant, a tech policy analyst at the investment firm Cowen. "That's not a crowd they want to be associated with."


Should be interesting.
 

ColdSun

Together, we are strangers
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
3,292
giphy.gif

Honestly, the amount of power and influence these few companies have should definitely come under harsh scrutiny.
 

Spine Crawler

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,228
giphy.gif

Honestly, the amount of power and influence these few companies have should definitely come under harsh scrutiny.
They do have a lot of power but it is power they gathered in a free market environment. Google simply was the best search engine and yahoo, altavista, lycos, webcrawler, bing etc. didnt make the cut. Amazon has provided better services than most retailers etc. etc. There are also new services coming up every day. In the social mediaspace we have tiktok or pininterest. In the ecommerce space Shopify.
Apple in particular is in constant rivalry with Samsung and Huawei.
 

Ludon Bear

Alt Account
Banned
Mar 4, 2020
161
They do have a lot of power but it is power they gathered in a free market environment. Google simply was the best search engine and yahoo, altavista, lycos, webcrawler, bing etc. didnt make the cut. Amazon has provided better services than most retailers etc. etc. There are also new services coming up every day. In the social mediaspace we have tiktok or pininterest. In the ecommerce space Shopify.
Apple in particular is in constant rivalry with Samsung and Huawei.
You mean the free market environment of the US, where big businesses can influence politics to become more powerful and richer, so that new or smaller businesses don't have a chance to catch up.
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
It's astounding on here we have people defending these companies based on a meritocracy. Like it's somehow the late 90's for a lot of these companies and not 2020.
 

Snake Eater

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,385
Unless they're split up it's another dog and pony show
 

Spine Crawler

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,228
You mean the free market environment of the US, where big businesses can influence politics to become more powerful and richer, so that new or smaller businesses don't have a chance to catch up.
Yes but Yahoo was a big corporation at one point and so was Blackberry. Microsoft, that competed with all those corporations at one point with LinkedIn, Bing, Mixer, Zune, Surface etc. was seen as a monopolist as well. You could argue that Apple actually successfully broke MS stronghold in the OS Market by creating a new category of computers (smartphones).
It's astounding on here we have people defending these companies based on a meritocracy. Like it's somehow the late 90's for a lot of these companies and not 2020.
Isnt it arbitrary to break up, say apple, when MS who arguably had a much bigger monopoly was not?
 

djplaeskool

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,753
Are there any expectations that there will be any substantive action taken against them, as with big tobacco, because that's not the groove I'm getting with any reporting on the forthcoming testimonies.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,103
Are there any expectations that there will be any substantive action taken against them, as with big tobacco, because that's not the groove I'm getting with any reporting on the forthcoming testimonies.
The most that will happen here is that their testimonies may inform (and perhaps form part of) future antitrust investigations.

Plus maybe some meme videos of Republicans asking Google why Twitter hates them or other such nonsense.
 

Aureon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,819
Breakup should happen, but won't.
Maybe would've with Warren pres, but highly doubt it will

All of them, really, should follow one principle: You can't run a marketplace and act as a seller in it.
 

JLP101

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,745
Its not the size of the company but rather the practices they engage in. Are these companies intentionally and actively stopping competition from entering the market? Are they engaging in predatory pricing that makes it impossible for any competition to survive? etc.

Given that last week we learned that Amazon screwed over a lot of startups its not hard to know the answers to these questions. Given the current state of the American government, I'm not anticipating any concrete actions taken.
 

Midgarian

Alt Account
Banned
Apr 16, 2020
2,619
Midgar
They do have a lot of power but it is power they gathered in a free market environment. Google simply was the best search engine and yahoo, altavista, lycos, webcrawler, bing etc. didnt make the cut. Amazon has provided better services than most retailers etc. etc. There are also new services coming up every day. In the social mediaspace we have tiktok or pininterest. In the ecommerce space Shopify.
Apple in particular is in constant rivalry with Samsung and Huawei.
/s right? Right?
 

el jacko

Member
Dec 12, 2017
947
The strongest arguments for breaking up any of these companies, in my opinion, is against Facebook and Amazon. I'm also not an anti-trust lawyer, so I'd love an opinion from an expert if there's one on this site.

Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp should obviously be split up. Then, Facebook should be split into news aggregation, advertising, and profile/CV services companies, basically splitting the various FB services into their own, independent companies. And between each of these now 6 different companies, integration needs to be heavily regulated, specifically the sharing of private data as an advertising "sales" resource - though this should also probably be an industry-wide rule.

Anyway, Amazon's major issue is the power of their online sales network - they have web services, an online marketplace, the underlying infrastructure, and then multiple in-house brands. These should probably be split up. I think the major issue here is that they can put competitors out of business by selling their own branded goods below market value, knowing they'll make up the funds through the web services and advertising.

And I think this issue of selling your own goods on your own marketplace applies to Apple, and probably should hit them both - you can't manage a marketplace if you also sell your own stuff on it, maybe? I'm not sure of the ripple effects of this kind of law, though.

Google has restructured itself into a variety of smaller companies all under Alphabet, and I bet there's a real argument to be made that each of those smaller companies should be made their own independent company.

One issue not addressed here is that, one argument for integrating all these companies is that they can improve security of data handling. This is, at the least, Apple's argument for an all-in-one ecosystem. And both Google and Apple have been very good at protecting customers' private information. Facebook, far less so. Not sure what to think of this topic, though.
 

Tahnit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,965
Google, facebook, and amazon i can see but apple? Apple has a competitor, a rather large one called google. Android devices still sell very well compared to apple. Yes I know google is on the list too but in terms of products apple just sells hardware and has their stuff tied in with their software. But I dont think they are a monopoly at all.
 

kiguel182

Member
Oct 31, 2017
9,441
Apple could've avoided all of this if they ran their App Store better.

I hope lawmakers do something about these companies. They are hurting the tech industry.

Amazon and Facebook are almost an open and shut case to be split off.
 

thisismadness

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,447
I don't understand the hype for this. Yes, all of these companies deserve to be under extreme scrutiny but for wildly different reasons. Bringing them all together just seems like a spectacle that's ultimately is going to end up unfocused and accomplish nothing.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,613
If this is really a "Big Tobacco" moment, you'd think at least one of them would see the writing on the wall and want to save their face in history books and not lie/fight antitrust rules.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
Don't get your hopes up. These politicians are not prepared to take these companies to task and don't have the power to break them up. Bringing in 4 people from 4 different companies with different anti trust issues is a mistake.
 

thisismadness

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,447
Don't get your hopes up. These politicians are not prepared to take these companies to task and don't have the power to break them up. Bringing in 4 people from 4 different companies with different anti trust issues is a mistake.

Exactly. I expect the republicans will spend their time whining about their racist/sexist/homophobic voices being censored than anything worthwhile.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,087
They do have a lot of power but it is power they gathered in a free market environment. Google simply was the best search engine and yahoo, altavista, lycos, webcrawler, bing etc. didnt make the cut. Amazon has provided better services than most retailers etc. etc. There are also new services coming up every day. In the social mediaspace we have tiktok or pininterest. In the ecommerce space Shopify.
Apple in particular is in constant rivalry with Samsung and Huawei.
The problem is not how they first acquired power (by being better / in the right moment / whatever) but what they have done afterwards to squash any competition. For instance Facebook lying about their numbers to promote video content, or Amazon copying products that sell well on their platform, or general Apple and Google fuckery stealing info from other smaller startups by faking interest on investments.

Basically, all normal behaviour in monopolistic markets.
 

Talka

Member
Oct 29, 2017
233
Weird that Microsoft is not included and Facebook is included. Seems like MSFT has more anticompetitive concerns in common with AMZN, GOOG, and AAPL than does FB.

Anyways, I'm torn and overall pessimistic on the hearings' usefulness. These are complicated and nuanced issues, and it's possible/reasonable to believe each of the following is true:
  • Large corporations have large power and deserve high scrutiny, so hearings are good in principle. Government should actively regulate markets to maximize consumer welfare in practice (definitely) and enforce fair market competition in principle (debatably, i.e., when doing so doesn't harm consumers).
  • The hearings will likely be unhelpful in practice, given (a) the group testimony structure disperses the risk and potential impact for each participating company; (b) besides the shared fact each company is large there is no single coherent concern about these companies as a group (e.g., Amazon's concern is possible abuse of partners through its 3P seller service, Apple's concern is possible abuse of developers through its App Store management, Alphabet's concern is possible abuse of competitors through its search monopoly, Facebook's concern is possible abuse of customers through its data management policies and abuse of partners by falsifying view counts)
  • There is no shared cure to these issues. "Break them up" is not a realistic cure to the above concerns, either logistically or practically. Logistically, "breaking up" any one of these companies doesn't address their respective concern... each concern above if substantiated would either continue even if the respective company were broken up, or the separations required to address these concerns are not practical (e.g., you can't "break up" Amazon from its 3P seller service, you can't "break up" Apple from its App Store). Practically, these companies and services are popular. Google has an effective monopoly in search because users choose to use it. And despite negative press coverage in the media and negative sentiment common on the online left... Facebook, Apple, and Amazon all remain hugely popular with consumers and the American public.
  • Given any actual solutions to address the respective concerns about these companies require nuance and a detailed understanding of how tech firms and aggregation theory works... how much confidence do you have in Congress to handle that nuance? I have low confidence.
My own view is that the most important things to address in the hearings are the following:
  1. Prevent these and other large companies from suppressing competition with lateral acquisitions. Facebook's purchase of Instagram should never have been allowed, although undoing it at this point is a lost cause. What's important now is understanding what future acquisitions are anticompetitive when dealing with popular aggregator services to avoid repeating the Instagram mistake going forward.
  2. Each company needs significant more disclosure and transparency in their financial releases so regulators can enforce existing antitrust policy, e.g., Alphabet needs to report on YouTube as an independent business.
  3. Amazon's possible abuse of its 3P seller service is a distinct issue without a clear solution. Apple's possible abuse of its App Store is a distinct issue without a clear solution. Facebook's possible abuse of customer data is a distinct issue without a clear solution. (Separately, Micosoft leveraging Office 365 to push Teams and Azure is a distinct issue without a clear solution). Each of these issues requires nuanced and creative solutions to ideas to achieve a net-positive outcome for consumers and competition. I am not optimistic these hearings will advance that cause, though I'm glad the hearings are taking place.
tl;dr: I don't believe there are shared and clear concerns about these companies, even if there were shared and clear concerns I don't believe there is a common cure to address them, and even if there were a common cure I'm not optimistic the hearings would be capable of doing anything to advance it.

Should be fun to watch though.
 
Last edited:

Spine Crawler

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,228
The problem is not how they first acquired power (by being better / in the right moment / whatever) but what they have done afterwards to squash any competition. For instance Facebook lying about their numbers to promote video content, or Amazon copying products that sell well on their platform, or general Apple and Google fuckery stealing info from other smaller startups by faking interest on investments.

Basically, all normal behaviour in monopolistic markets.

agreed. these type of monopolistic or even fraudulent behavior need to be fined and sanctioned
 

Klotera

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,550
Guarantee that Republicans will turn this into a big spectacle about "liberal bias" in tech. The article mentions it, but I think it'll be a large part of this. Especially in an election year, you're going to see a big production out of some of these GOP reps.

It'll distract from the real issues. The biggest concern with that, for me, is that we can't trust this administration to not allow that to cloud any antitrust action they take against these companies. Trump has already been doing this with Amazon because of WaPo coverage of him. Will they try leverage this for, say, better search results or guarantees not to "censor conservative voices"?
 

imbarkus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,645
They are broadcasters, in the new medium. Broadcasters have typically been subject to licensing and FCC regulation.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,103
Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp should obviously be split up. Then, Facebook should be split into news aggregation, advertising, and profile/CV services companies, basically splitting the various FB services into their own, independent companies. And between each of these now 6 different companies, integration needs to be heavily regulated, specifically the sharing of private data as an advertising "sales" resource - though this should also probably be an industry-wide rule.
The strength of the argument for splitting up Facebook would depend heavily on the extent to which it was determined that they'd used each of their services to boost the others - for example, how much they'd used Facebook to push Instagram, or Whatsapp.

I don't use Instagram, and I try to stay fairly distanced from Facebook as a social feed in general (though I do use both Messenger and Whatsapp a bit), so it's difficult for me to comment on how much they're pushing each service in the other, but from my glancing distance, it seems like they're abusing that to the extent that an antitrust investigation would recommend that they be broken up.

You can, for example, use Whatsapp and not Facebook. As far as I can see, Whatsapp doesn't promote Facebook and vice versa, to the point where Facebook are pretty strongly competing against themselves in the messaging market.

There is almost certainly scope to split off some portion of the messaging business, but that'd probably be more of a business rationale than an antitrust one.

There's no way that any action against Facebook will split off the advertising portion. Their entire business model is built on top of that and breaking up a company is an extreme measure as it is - when it's been done, the intention has been to leave viable companies. There may however be scope to force some kind of third party access to Facebook advertising channels, allowing smaller advertising companies a way into Facebook's advertising ecosystem, maybe something like local loop unbundling.

Anyway, Amazon's major issue is the power of their online sales network - they have web services, an online marketplace, the underlying infrastructure, and then multiple in-house brands. These should probably be split up. I think the major issue here is that they can put competitors out of business by selling their own branded goods below market value, knowing they'll make up the funds through the web services and advertising.
Yes, I think there'd be a solid case against Amazon. They do offer third parties some level of access to their own infrastructure (with third parties being able to choose Amazon fulfilment - I'm not certain of the back-end details or requirements of that, but it is there), but they have such a huge suite of advantages that it's difficult to imagine that nothing they're doing could be classed as anticompetitive.

And I think this issue of selling your own goods on your own marketplace applies to Apple, and probably should hit them both - you can't manage a marketplace if you also sell your own stuff on it, maybe? I'm not sure of the ripple effects of this kind of law, though.
I don't think that kind of law is enforceable. Technically anyone running a store is managing a marketplace, and arguments over what would count as "your own stuff" to someone running a store could get really abstract.

In the end I don't think there's an inherent problem with a company running a store and selling their stuff on it (and a lot of online stores - and stores in general - are pretty much exactly and often exclusively that). The problem comes when the storerunners give themselves preferential treatment over and above the other products they're selling (and also have a big enough portion of the market that doing that is damaging to those other products).

In Amazon's case, I think their stores are strongly preferential to Amazon products, so (as mentioned earlier) I think there's a solid case there. Like, if I load up Amazon, I would say that probably over 60% of the visible content that appears when the page loads is advertising some Amazon product or service. It's clear that they push themselves in ways that are simply not available to other businesses selling on Amazon.

With Apple I don't think there's quite as good a case. Their App Store placements definitely aren't as heavily geared towards Apple as the front page of Amazon is geared towards Amazon. They mostly achieve that by having their key apps installed by default, so there might be a case there, but in terms of the App Store I think they would probably escape any serious consequences from an antitrust investigation.

One issue not addressed here is that, one argument for integrating all these companies is that they can improve security of data handling. This is, at the least, Apple's argument for an all-in-one ecosystem. And both Google and Apple have been very good at protecting customers' private information. Facebook, far less so. Not sure what to think of this topic, though.
This is an interesting point for sure. You could look at it the other way around too - having these enormous companies that have access to essentially all your personal data creates big targets that probably look extra-tempting for hackers or other bad actors. Splitting them into separate companies might mean that any one breach would be a smaller problem.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,846
Breakup should happen, but won't.
Maybe would've with Warren pres, but highly doubt it will

All of them, really, should follow one principle: You can't run a marketplace and act as a seller in it.

That makes all of the products involved worse. If Apple can't sell its own applications while also having an application store, that means it doesn't have an NLE, it doesn't have media creation applications, it doesn't have its own productivity suite, aka one of the major points in having a Mac in the first place.

I think to me the ultimate question is what is the point of antitrust laws. Are they for consumers or businesses? Because if it's the former, I think you have a hard argument for breaking up any of them. "They constrain new companies from coming up which harms the consumer" is really an abstract and debatable concept in and of itself, and not a principle I think should hold much weight; I can't just go out and start my own phone company, that doesn't serve as proof positive that phone companies should be broken up. You have to demonstrate what the actual problems are.

Beyond that, these tech giants are completely different beasts, and to that degree I don't see how general hearings are that effective.

If there's a place the government should actually be stepping up it's preventing some of these acquisitions and mergers in the first place.
 

Jo-awn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,039
New York, NY
Sadly, acquisitions are all the rage during this administration. Just look at the recent acquisition of I Heart Radio by the same rich old white guy who owns Live Nation, Ticketmaster, Sirius FM, and Pandora among other things. Dude owns the entire production pipeline.

I'm not saying the Obama administration was a saint either since Tom Wheeler approved the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. That's a whole other issue. Pai greenlights acquisitions and mergers without thinking about it. Dude gives 0 Fs about the ramifications in the name of capitalism.

Anyway, I too don't see anything meaningful coming out of this. The Trump administration has an axe to grind against Jeff Bezos so they will no doubt bring that up. I think it will be a distraction at best. But I think it will be a bit frustrating to watch them all give vague PR speak answers.
 

NihonTiger

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,518
One of the problems with splitting them up is that there's no guarantee that they won't reform into an even bigger behemoth in the future.

AT&T got broken up in the 1980s into several regional companies. Over time, one of the Baby Bells -- SBC -- gobbled up many of the regional companies and re-emerged as a slightly smaller AT&T megacorp. One that didn't eventually got folded into CenturyLink, and the remaining two in the Northeast became Verizon (which later gobbled up several other smaller companies and MCI). The only free-standing Baby Bell left is Cincinnati Bell.

Standard Oil went through a similar result -- most of the companies it was broken up into merged into what eventually became ExxonMobil and Chevron, while most of those that didn't became part of Amoco, which is now part of BP. Marathon is the only one that remains on its own for now, but they're likely going to be a takeover target in the future.
 

Deleted member 9330

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,990
Apple literally could avoid this entire thing by changing one App Store rule about payment processing. I know there's other quibbles, but that's the BIG thing that's gonna get them.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,103
I think to me the ultimate question is what is the point of antitrust laws. Are they for consumers or businesses? Because if it's the former, I think you have a hard argument for breaking up any of them. "They constrain new companies from coming up which harms the consumer" is really an abstract and debatable concept in and of itself, and not a principle I think should hold much weight
Those laws are for businesses, with the assumption that having more competition will benefit consumers down the line.

And while that might indeed be debatable, it's not something that will actually be debated (by politicians, at least).

I can't just go out and start my own phone company, that doesn't serve as proof positive that phone companies should be broken up.
That's not really what antitrust and anti-competition laws are about.

The laws are an attempt to make it so that when someone asks "what do I need to do to succeed in [existing market]?" the answer is "Build a product that's as good or better than the competitors in that market, price it fairly, advertise it well, and improve your product over time in response to your competitors".

If doing all that happens to be naturally difficult, then that might be a problem for new competitors in that market, but it's not an antitrust problem.

The problems start to appear when the answer to that question becomes things like "first, establish dominance in this other completely separate market" or "you can never succeed in this market no matter what you do because the market leader artificially/illegally blocks competition".

If there's a place the government should actually be stepping up it's preventing some of these acquisitions and mergers in the first place.
Yes, absolutely, and that's a power that's held by the US government and many others worldwide (most notably the European Commission). It's not used often, arguably not often enough, but as a power, it's there.

One of the problems with splitting them up is that there's no guarantee that they won't reform into an even bigger behemoth in the future.
This is true but I'm not sure that it's a problem. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have all trended upwards in size for quite a while now. If they're broken up and reform later, that's still going to mean plenty of time when there's smaller companies with less dominant market positions. Even if they grow back to their current size, it's not clear why that would be a problem by comparison to the current situation, which is that they're already at their current size and still growing.
 
OP
OP
signal

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
Weird that Microsoft is not included and Facebook is included. Seems like MSFT has more anticompetitive concerns in common with AMZN, GOOG, and AAPL than does FB.

gizmodo.com

What to Expect at Tomorrow's Big Tech Antitrust Hearing

After an understandable delay, a change of venue, and no small amount of prodding, four of the most recognizable business magnates in the U.S. are set to explain to lawmakers just how, exactly, they became so powerful. Yes, it’s a big deal, and not just because it will be Jeff Bezos’s first time...

Why isn't Microsoft going to be there?
Honestly, I'm not sure, and neither is anyone else. Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, gave testimony to the Antitrust Committee, according to reporting from The Information, some of which involved the company's concerns about Apple. But for whatever reason, Microsoft managed to dodge this particular bullet.

🤷‍♂️
 

deepFlaw

Knights of Favonius World Tour '21
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,496
Yeah, I have about 0 hope that this goes anywhere worthwhile by the time it's over.

I guess it's good that it's happening at all? Maybe? That's about all I can feel.
 

Terra Firma

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,235
And nothing will come of it. These companies have government contracts and a lot of these elected officials might as well be employees of these companies due to direct or indirect lobbying.