If I had to pick a single politically uniting issue, breaking up Amazon and big tech would be it.
Why has this not happened yet? Is the out of power party afraid the in power party will get credit? (This has been discussed when both parties were in power)
If the government can't get something with this kind of support done, I fear the road we are headed down .
I don't think that people are united about breaking up Amazon and frankly I don't really see the damage to consumer necessary to break it up; products come faster, cheaper.
Could you articulate why Amazon should be broken up? Most of the arguments I've seen boil down to "It's so big" and not really "It's effectively dominated x market and there is no competition there" or even "they are harming competition by pre-installing free software that I can't uninstall"
2. They purport to operate a neutral marketplace where they aren't responsible for the end product while also controlling what products you see and what company you will buy from and choose the ones that give them the best margin. The huge problem of counterfeit and faulty products on Amazon directly harms the consumer and because of (1) there isn't a general market remedy.
3. They leverage their position as market maker to figure out what products to manufacture and undercut innovative companies with their massive scale. In the short term this is a net benefit to consumers who get a cheaper product but it creates a mess of bad incentives down the line.
>They have the size and market control to crush and/or acquire all competitors
I don't think that is true for all competitors, but it definitely is for many competitors. It's a good point if they are using that power, which I think they are, especially in particular industries. Same applies to Facebook, Apple, and many other companies as well.
>2. They purport to operate a neutral marketplace where they aren't responsible for the end product while also controlling what products you see and what company you will buy from and choose the ones that give them the best margin. The huge problem of counterfeit and faulty products on Amazon directly harms the consumer and because of (1) there isn't a general market remedy.
That's two different things, isn't it? Counterfeit products are a problem and a non-neutral market is a different problem. I think the non-neutral market bit is already covered by existing regulations, isn't it? Shouldn't we simply apply the rules we have?
>3. They leverage their position as market maker to figure out what products to manufacture and undercut innovative companies with their massive scale. In the short term this is a net benefit to consumers who get a cheaper product but it creates a mess of bad incentives down the line.
This one I've seen before but not as an argument to break them up - it's an interesting argument to me because I think a lot of companies engage in these practices. Grocery stores classically would release basic cheerios for example and undercut the price of the brand
I don't know how large of a concern this is, but Amazons wide growth allows using revenue from their higher profit sectors (such as aws) to force out competitors in other lower margin sectors they are involved with such as grocery stores. This also may very well be a strategy other large conglomerates utilize.
Amazon's continuous expansion is resulting in powerful monopsonies - if you want to for example create your own book, soon there is going to be no option but to sell it to Amazon so it will be in kindles and on audible. Amazon will have complete power over what cut of the profits to give you.
Why bother making that new product you thought of when the only way to sell it is by listing it on Amazon and eventually having Amazon copy it and sell under "Amazons Choice".
So while Amazon is great for consumers, it is terrible for producers. And you have to remember - if you have a job you are a producer too. For now you are getting cheaper and more convenient service, but soon you will be struggling to find a job if this continues.
> "It's effectively dominated x market and there is no competition there"
Amazon often enough dominates local labor markets - they strategically set up their fulfillment centers in places that have high unemployment, so that employees have no practical (!) alternative than to accept the exploitative working conditions that Amazon offers.
Regarding marketplaces: in accessible online shopping, Amazon and eBay are a de-facto duopoly for the vendors. Get booted off of either and watch your business go dry in a matter of days.
> "they are harming competition by pre-installing free software that I can't uninstall"
That one was literally used as a justification for the IE de-bundling many years ago.
>That one was literally used as a justification for the IE de-bundling many years ago.
Yeah, that's what I was referencing by using it - that said my phone comes bundled with trash that I can't uninstall
>Regarding marketplaces: in accessible online shopping, Amazon and eBay are a de-facto duopoly for the vendors. Get booted off of either and watch your business go dry in a matter of days.
Their marketplace does seem to be pretty powerful, but I've seen a lot of vendors do well with a standalone site + Instagram/Facebook ads and marketplace so I'm not sure it's really a duopoly for all vendors. If you are only in one market and that market bans you your business will go dry immediately either way.
>Amazon often enough dominates local labor markets - they strategically set up their fulfillment centers in places that have high unemployment, so that employees have no practical (!) alternative than to accept the exploitative working conditions that Amazon offers.
This one I don't think works - it can apply to any employer that moves into a high unemployment area and I think that's something we want to encourage companies to do
I don't get this sentiment, what exactly do you think will be the benefits of doing this? It's a drastic action, you don't just break up multi billion companies in an afternoon, so you better come up with some very good concrete points on why this is necessary. Not just vague statements about improving competition.
Also you know what a huge role Silicon Valley companies play for the U.S. internationally? And you want to cripple them?
I don't understand how here on HN, where the majority is in the tech industry, the people are begging for government intervention and regulations. Be careful what you ask for, I'd rather have them stay out of the industry, thanks.
I think as a consumer, if we are talking about breaking businesses, first in line should be the the cable and telecom oligopolies. Big tech can come next. These companies control more critical infrastructure compared to big tech companies.
I think that a lot of the big politics players realize that if the big companies get broken up, some of the businesses might not be as profitable.
In other words, it seems like some businesses have been able to find a diamond//golden goose so much so that they are able to support different businesses. These other businesses will not have had the same success if they didn't have a cashcow behind their back.
They are close to hitting a critical point in terms of political and economic power where they literally will no longer be able to be stopped. We will have no recourse but to replace our government with Amazon. It will be like Buy n Large in Wall-e.
I fear we are already beyond the point of stopping them. Remember those cringey, awkward videos by dozens of mayors begging Amazon to choose their city for their second headquarters? I'm all for gov-biz partnership, but gov literally begging big biz is not a good sign. There is a power imbalance here.
I disagree, there is a lot the government could do. Amazon is nothing with out the US Government. Protection of all of it's property, maintaining infrastructure, both the internet and transportation system. Simply charging business for the wear and tear the place on the roads would be a start.
Amazon builds and operates internet-disconnected datacenters, on-prem in Langley, for the CIA. You're not getting rid of the CIA's drone video cluster sysadmins.
They also operate several internet-connected regions (GovCloud) that have the special racist hiring policies required to fulfill US govt hosting regulations.
Why has this not happened yet? Is the out of power party afraid the in power party will get credit? (This has been discussed when both parties were in power)
If the government can't get something with this kind of support done, I fear the road we are headed down .