[jsloss]

You make a great point. An interesting question is, are anti-trust laws in their current form, adequate for the networked era?

When organizations are able to use their network effects to decrease competition in markets (FB / Amazon / Google) does that create a negative outcome despite clearly delivering a better product for customers in the short run.

It's clear that network effects and big bank accounts decrease innovation and competition, and it's hard to think that won't have long term negative effects. Just think, is starting a social network a smart thing to do today if your only option is being bought by Facebook, or having them integrate your innovations into one of their services?

That being said, innovation thrives on constraints, and there is no indication that these companies wont fall prey to new technology and user demands. It just seems less likely given the powerful position they are all in.

[austenallred]

> It's clear that network effects and big bank accounts decrease innovation and competition

Network effects almost by definition often create a better user experience. For example, Facebook has a network effect in that all your friends are there. The reason that’s so powerful is you actually want to join a network where your friends are.

It seems like it hinders competition, but it only does so because it’s a much better user experience.

Very different than, say, Standard Oil where an entire natural resource and distribution line is owned by one company to the extent that it’s literally impossible to compete, then they start screwing you because they can.

[prklmn]

>>Network effects almost by definition often create a better user experience. For example, Facebook has a network effect in that all your friends are there. The reason that’s so powerful is you actually want to join a network where your friends are.

This thinking is backwards. You’re not there because you want to be there, you’re there simply because your friends are there and if you’re not, you’re left out. It’s not the platform that pulls, friends on the platform pull.

[jsloss]

Yes, that is my point. Current anti-trust laws are only relevant when monopolistic behaviour leads to a worse product for consumers. Which is not the case for the big internet companies, who use network effects and their data advantages to build a better experience for the user (cheaper, faster, more etc)

The problem is, we have no way of knowing what ISN'T being built or what benefits or new offerings consumers aren't able to access because these companies have created an environment where competition is severely limited.

There's no easy answer here. Consumers are clearly better off being served a better product. Regulating based on the idea that there could be some future benefit that consumers are missing out on because of these monopolies, is a tough argument to make.

Should Facebook be able to buy up all the social graphs? If regulations prohibited them from doing so, would it really hurt facebook? Or would it create an environment with more choice, options and competition?

Exponent.fm podcast has some interesting episodes on this topic. Worth a listen.

[FeepingCreature]

If social networks weren't walled gardens but had interoperability, it wouldn't matter where your friends were.

Regulation could enforce this, improving user experience while curtailing potential for corporate abuse.

[scarface74]

So now you want the government where hardly any of the lawmakers know anything about technology to regulate it?

[nrb]

I don't think an all-or-nothing knee-jerk approach is helpful here.

1) Should you have the right to do what you please with the data you create on a platform? Should companies be able to deny you this right? What should their obligations be RE: data portability?

2) Is it good for competition and customer choice for interoperability to exist? Conversely, is it bad if it doesn't? Are there any downsides to interoperability as a user?

Starting off with something as limited as an open standard for describing your node of a social graph would already be a huge improvement from where things are today. The question is whether users have the power to demand this, or if they even understand its benefits. At a certain point the incumbents become so rich and powerful that they just acquire or pound into dust any threat from new entrants.

[scarface74]

Why do you need “the government” to dictate that you should be allowed to do what you want with your data? I can export both my RSS subscriptions from my RSS aggregator and my podcast subscriptions from my podcast player to OPML. I chose software that lets me do that. I can export my email and calendar data using open formats.

I can’t think of any software or platform where you don’t have an alternative of choosing something that is interoperable and how is the government going to enforce it? Are they going to define the standard? Are they going to enforce that for all developers? Does that mean I have to follow some government standard every time I write software?

If they enforce an open social graph, does that mean the people I am connected to can export my information and import it into another service that I am not already on?

[nrb]

You'll notice I didn't use the word government or regulation in my message. As I said I'm not so sure a knee-jerk response like regulation is the answer right now, but that there might be some intermediate steps that would keep regulation from becoming necessary.

> Why do you need “the government” to dictate that you should be allowed to do what you want with your data? I can export both my RSS subscriptions from my RSS aggregator and my podcast subscriptions from my podcast player to OPML. I chose software that lets me do that. I can export my email and calendar data using open formats.

Right, and I cannot do that with my social network connections. And there is a HUGE financial incentive to disallow users from ever doing this.

> I can’t think of any software or platform where you don’t have an alternative of choosing something that is interoperable and how is the government going to enforce it? Are they going to define the standard? Are they going to enforce that for all developers? Does that mean I have to follow some government standard every time I write software?

Look to the real world for examples here. Social networks work a lot like telecommunication networks and the internet itself. Can you imagine if you needed an account on AT&T, Spring, T-Mobile, etc etc and know each persons per-network-unique number to call or text them? How about if you had to have an account with each individual network provider that served websites, and they had no universal way to address them?

> If they enforce an open social graph, does that mean the people I am connected to can export my information and import it into another service that I am not already on?

Theoretically it doesn't require anything more than an signature/public key that it uses to match you and your connections when you have both joined some other new network. It could be designed in such a way that the new network cannot build a "shadow profile" of you because the "relationship keys" are unique per connection, eg. three friends that are all connected to each other would have unique keys representing their relationships.

[FeepingCreature]

Government regulation brought us Micro-USB standardized phone charging and low-cost EU wide roaming. I'm cautiously hopeful.

[scarface74]

And Apple offered an adapter -for a price -and the EU said they were in compliance. The whole purpose was to reduce ewaste.

Actually though, that goes to my point. The government mandated micro-usb, and now there is a better connector USB-C. How long will it take the government to update the law to catch up with technology?

[FeepingCreature]

It's not perfect, but it improves on the previous state of affairs. The free market did not even manage to give us standardized Micro-USB charging. Regulation is not competing against Utopia.

[TheCoelacanth]

Monopolies almost always create a better experience, at first, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to become a monopoly.

[unclebucknasty]

>does that create a negative outcome despite clearly delivering a better product for customers in the short run

Yes. Nearly by definition the consumer generally benefits in the short run, which frequently contributes to the establishment of the monopoly in the first place.

The crux of antitrust law is concerned with the negative long-term effects, which frequently do lead to customer harm: lack of choice, price gouging, stifled innovation, etc.