Big tech CEOs face antitrust hearing in congress

2u2me

The hearing was supposed to examine how each of these companies achieve and maintain dominance and how their power affects and shapes our daily lives.

They have wielded this power in destructive and harmful ways[...]
Simply put; they have too much power. This power staves of new forms of competition, creativity and innovation. [...]

Will we govern ourselves or allow ourselves to be governed by private monopolies. American democracy has always been at war against monopoly power. Throughout our history we've recognized that concentrated markets and concentrated political control are incompatible with democratic ideals. When the American people confronted monopolists in the past be it the railroads or the oil tycoons or ATT & Microsoft we took action to ensure no private corporation controls our economy or our democracy. We face similar challenges today.

As gatekeepers of the digital economy these platforms enjoy the power to pick winners and losers, to shake down small business' and enrich themselves while they choke off competitors.

[...]
Our founders would not bow before a king, nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.

David Cicilline (Democrat - Chair, from the opening)

Here's a copy of the hearing from Bloomberg. Although it was supposed to be about monopoly power much of the hearing was just complaints about how the companies conduct themselves. In particular gripes about censorshiping of dissident and conservative opinion and how this might affect the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg seemed to suggest that if they were regulated by government that this would open a space in the market for Chinese firms with even less scruples to enter.

"We believe in values — democracy, competition, inclusion and free expression — that the American economy was built on. China is building its own version of the internet focused on very different ideas, and they are exporting their vision to other countries."-Mark Zuckerberg

Bezos and Cook's opening statements were also about patriotism and how this could not happen in another country. They also echoed the fiercely competitive market coming from China. I find it difficult to argue with this, Chinese owned(and thus CCP controled) social media would be far worse.

I'm sure many will say; "They are a private company they can do what they want" but with the practices outlined it's not possible for competition to enter their markets.

" Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority:"-John Dalberg-Acton

ronivek

2u2me wrote: »

The hearing was supposed to examine how each of these companies achieve and maintain dominance and how their power affects and shapes our daily lives.

This is indeed a valid concern; although to me this is not about individual companies but rather about how society is changing due to the pervasive influence of technology. These are just some of the larger corporate examples which are helping to drive this change.

2u2me wrote: »

Although it was supposed to be about monopoly power much of the hearing was just complaints about how the companies conduct themselves.

As above I think the real issues are societal and actually very little to do with these companies individually. These companies just happen to be the most well-known and most powerful examples; and the easiest to target from a political and populist perspective.

The crux of the matter is that Governments are struggling to impose their will on technology companies; and in particular the USA has this perception (whether rightly or wrongly) that it's entitled to more compensation and 'loyalty' from these companies which it considers to be fundamentally American.

2u2me wrote: »

Zuckerberg seemed to suggest that if they were regulated by government that this would open a space in the market for Chinese firms with even less scruples to enter.

I think it's clear that the USA (or certainly a significant percentage of it) is aiming for Orwellian control over technology; as evidenced by their attempts to undermine encryption, to destroy net neutrality, etc. This is the path the Chinese are already well along; but if certain interests in the USA get their way they'll be following shortly.

2u2me wrote: »

I'm sure many will say; "They are a private company they can do what they want" but with the practices outlined it's not possible for competition to enter their markets.

It is absolutely possible for competition to enter their markets. In fact I would challenge you to name even one product or service that any of these companies offer which can't be found somewhere else. I suspect it would be quite difficult if not impossible.

Which is not to say there aren't questions to be considered and issues which may need to be addressed. One of those might be the standard model whereby technology companies readily buy out and absorb potential competitors early in their life-cycles.

In any case the whole concept of bringing CEOs and founders to 'testify' in front of laypeople who haven't a clue what they're actually talking about is a little ridiculous. It's a rather pointless exercise in public relations and populism.

ChelseaRentBoy

Watched some of it last last on Bloomberg, seemed much ado about nothing.

biko

I didn't even know Ireland has a Congress.