Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Will Examine Tech Platforms like Google, Facebook and Amazon as Part of Competition Review (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the about-time dept.

The Federal Trade Commission will examine the questions surrounding powerful tech platforms like Google and Facebook as part of a review of consumer and competition policy issues beginning later this year. From a report: Hearings into these issues, announced by FTC Chairman Joe Simons on Wednesday, could help frame the agency's actions with regards to tech going forward. Simons indicated his examination of tech platforms would be broad and a major part of the review. "It's the network effects," he told reporters on Wednesday. "It's the fact that they're two-sided platforms. It's the interaction between privacy and competition. And it's all new, so it makes it very appropriate to have this be the subject of hearings and for us to get input on that."

20 comments

  1. Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I predict that nothing will come of this. 50 years ago maybe, but large corporations today live in the new paradigm of monopolistic acceptability.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    1. Re:Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by OffTheLip · · Score: 2

      and large campaign contributions.

    2. Re:Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They're also just big, not monopolies. There are plenty of online retailers that compete with Amazon. Google's main rival in the search engine space isn't popular because it's a shitty clone of Google, not because search engines are difficult to build. Facebook - well, kinda, but it's just the latest social network a large number of people have standardized on. MySpace was once in the same position. Build a better social network and they'll come.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by xlsior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just keep in mind: being a monopoly is perfectly legal. It's abusing monopolies that can get companies in hot water. (or luke warm, in microsoft's case)

    4. Re:Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      They're also just big, not monopolies. There are plenty of online retailers that compete with Amazon. Google's main rival in the search engine space isn't popular because it's a shitty clone of Google, not because search engines are difficult to build. Facebook - well, kinda, but it's just the latest social network a large number of people have standardized on. MySpace was once in the same position. Build a better social network and they'll come.

      I added emphasis to where you screwed up.

    5. Re:Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it makes sense to elect people that have a bone to pick and nothing to loose for taking on corporate-ocracy.

    6. Re:Sadly, the goal post moved long ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably better to say conceptually a search engine isn't that hard. Obviously it will take large data centers and computer scientists specializing in search algorithms to make it really work well but this is all well understood. It isn't a new science or anything. Where Google succeeded was that they had a clean non-intrusive interface when all of their competition seemed to be in a race to make their sites as complicated as possible. They also wisely invested in refining their search algorithm to be faster and more accurate than the others while they squandered their money and early market share trying to expand and complicate the site. Search engines are easy in that everyone knows what you have to do to make a good one.

      Make it fast, accurate and simple. Anything else gets in the way. The fast and accurate part may be technically difficult but it isn't from a management standpoint. It really just comes down to hiring the right people and giving them the proper direction. There was nothing stopping Yahoo from doing what Google did. They just didn't because they didn't understand their own product.

      In hindsight Google's strategy was correct but back in the 90's that wasn't apparent. The established wisdom during the search engine wars was that more was better. Try to cram as much functionality into your site as possible in some vain attempt to re-create the AOL interface or make a defacto front page for the internet. The irony being if the Yahoo model had won then it would have made the search part of its business obsolete. You don't need one if you never leave yahoo.com after all.

  2. Trump dislikes monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope to see something come of this because unlike past presidents Trump has Ben directly impacted by a monopoly and actually won a suit against the NFL in the 1980s.

    Maybe there will be results this time. Sure a hell of a lot more likely than it would have beeen under Clinton,Obama or GW Bush.

  3. Distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like just a distraction to draw public attention away from broadband and cable companies.

    1. Re:Distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole internet and all the scum it contains is a distraction. It should be destroyed utterly. Social media company executives hopefully be brought up on charges of fraud, deceptive practices, and illegally influencing elections. Should be a joint investigation by the FTC and FEC.

  4. Apply Section 230 of the CDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Actually apply Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to Facebook/Google/Twitter et al.

    "OK, you want to censor what you call "hate speech"? That makes you a publisher and therefore responsible for ALL content on your platform."

    Of course, the same "progressives" who wanted to use the "Fairness" Doctrine to shut down Rush Limbaugh are going to fight forcing platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google from no longer doing their pro-"progressive" censorship.

    And the Slashdot "progressive" crowd will do their standard "no-plaforming" and mod this down...

  5. It's the pipes, stupid! Review broadband markets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could care less if Facebook, Google, Amazon are too big. There are and always will be alternatives so long as everyone has access to competitively priced internet.

    However, break up Facebook, Google, Amazon, and you lose some of the only companies that can perhaps force down prices for consumers against the wishes of broadband providers.

  6. Follow the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Incumbent lobbies funneled money into the Trump administration against these companies. If these companies will funnel some money into a Republican PAC, then the investigation will shut down without any findings.

    What? You thought that Trump was making this personal because it was an effective way to negotiate for America? No, he made it personal because it sends the message, you scratch my back and I scratch yours. This is not being driven by policy.

    1. Re:Follow the Money by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      You're not seeing the big picture here. The problem is that they are competing too much. Since none of them are likely to be purchased or merged any time in the foreseeable future, they are going head to head for monopolistic control of the internet. That means users might have a choice, which is against Trump and Republican policy. If you doubt this, now that Time-Warner merged with AT&T, T-Moble wants to merge with Sprint, and that will happen. Soon we will only have two large cell phone carriers in the US, which is a Republican wet dream. They want the equivalent of the old Bell phone system, without all the pesky regulation.

      Republicans want a cartel economy. It's their way of imposing plutocracy. Trump envies Putin and his oligarchy pals, and despite their whining about "innovation" and "free enterprise" and "small business" the entire Republican Party is on the same page.

      Let's do the Slashdot meme:

      1. plutocracy/oligarchy

      2. ???

      3. Profit & permanent Republican rule

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  7. FEC versus Citizens United clenched it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CU verdict by the Supremes essentially made bribery 100% legal, because money is considered free speech, and a wad of dollars to a campaign from an anonymous source is protected by the 1A.

    I would be astounded if anything came of this, but at best it might be an "investigation" that winds up stalled and sidetracked, or at best, delayed for many years.

    1. Re:FEC versus Citizens United clenched it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The CU verdict by the Supremes essentially made bribery 100% legal, because money is considered free speech, and a wad of dollars to a campaign from an anonymous source is protected by the 1A.

      I would be astounded if anything came of this, but at best it might be an "investigation" that winds up stalled and sidetracked, or at best, delayed for many years.

      Something tells me you wouldn't apply your desire to "get the money out of politics" to the largest political donors in the country.

      Hint: something like 7 of the top ten are public employee unions, and you don't hit the fifth "Republican" donor until you get down to the 32nd largest political donor.

      Conclusion: the really big money in politics leans left.

  8. Disney? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    With the Disney acquiring Fox, surely they also need to be part of a competition review.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Disney? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Or AT&T acquiring Time-Warner (although there are lawsuits around that.) Or Sprint/T-Mobile which just got announced.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Disney? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Or Comcast/NBC/Universal. Or Cox/Time Warner. Or Microsoft/Motorola. Or any other of the number of buyouts that happened to make an already wealthy company wealthier and expand their grip on the American Consumers dollar.

      The whole point of our economy is to make money and promote competition. Right now there's so much focus on the former that the latter is all but gone - any new great idea is quickly bought before it can compete. We need that government intervention to make it easier for the little guy to step up to the big guys.

  9. FTC? HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will note the lack of interest on this article. People care but they know nothing will come of this and the FTC are a joke.