(03-21-2018 01:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.

Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).

No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.

Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)

Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.

Sherman 2b requires:

(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).

(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)

Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:

Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);

mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).

(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)

Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.

So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.

By your statement

Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.

What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

you're arguing an outdated law in scope....that's the problem....

what needs to be argued is how to adapt to current practices.....

I easily understand choice....however, when something is embedded as first pass and almost always first click, one has to question such being competitive on any device....

my point in total was to show that the post that i responded to that said 'you have to use a monopoly analysis' just iant applicable for assessing facebook etc.

could you expand on your 'first click' and 'first pass' comment? im not sure i fully understand your point. thanks in advance.

sorry about missing your response.....

the monopolistic side isn't just the business model, it's that combined with the database/algorithmic side of what one sees.....

that's why I used "outdated".... it wouldn't be hard to prove that google has a search engine monopoly coupled with how data is manipulated/purchased/sold that has intent to coerce and limit how information is dispensed....

I now have to manipulate queries now due to their bs......most don't know how or care.....and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to achieve the desired result....toss in the brainwashing side of the equation, and it turns into another propaganda machine....

that should scare anyone and why lines 1b, 1c, 3 and 4 exist in my sig.....

"first pass" references the initial 'slanted/biased' return from said query....

hth explain my position....

In what manner would you suggest updating the anti-trust laws (or for that matter, forming new anti-trust laws, or even new other types of legal restrictions)? If there is such a strong feeling that 'something should be done' (and I am not necessarily disagreeing with that POV, mind you), then *what* exactly is the '*something* that should be done'?

Not to be disrespectful, and hopefully the next comment is not taken as such, but, for example, after *every* mass shooting scads of people run around saying 'something should be done' without saying much more.

I can see where Google has an inordinate amount of power of the tie-in of personal information and the delivery of information, that delivery being tailored.

I can see the even *more* massive extent that Facebook penetrates personal information.

But, what exactly is happening that is so utterly *bad*, and what are the steps needed to help that problem?