[logicprog]

Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me.

I mean seriously, Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them; that can only make things worse on the economics side. Why are we forgetting that?

And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. And Amazon doesn't owe them the best possible service. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want!

[kerkeslager]

> Okay so wait, we have corporations trying to turn the public against a competitor for being "too successful," in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions, and no one is upset about this? Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me.

Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

> Amazon is so superior to the competition that they're left trying to use institutionalized violence to stop them

"Violence" is a word with a meaning, and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised. If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct.

Amazon isn't winning because they're superior to the competition. Lots of online sellers manage to not sell counterfeit goods, have better prices, and give more of the profit to the people actually producing products. Amazon is winning because of first-to-market advantages, pre-existing infrastructure, and monopolistic practices.

> And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform, they have a right to do that and they're not forcing sellers to use them. The sellers, if they really think they have a better chance elsewhere, can leave. It might make it worse for users, but again no one is forcing you to use Amazon. Use Walmart all you want!

It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly.

[logicprog]

In addition to my other comment, I wanted to point out that you make it seem as though Amazon being the first to market (which they weren't) would be somehow something that wasn't due to their merit. If they had actually been first to market, that would have been because they were good at what they did, and the benefits that came with that (if they were significant at all), would have been warranted.

You also make it seem like all the infrastructure that they use very efficiently to their advantage is something that they just found in the woods one day. They built all that, and are using the advantages gained from that, which are, again, earned and a part of Amazon's merit.

And further, I don't think explaining away a corporation's dominance by using monopolistic practices is very convincing when they rose to power so recently: how did Amazon get so big in the first place? Also, most of the monopolistic practices, of the kind that would allow a company to maintain dominance in spite of merit, are things Amazon is not doing. It's monopolistic practices are limited to it's own platform.

[kerkeslager]

How does it benefit society (now) that Amazon was first to sell stuff online at scale?

How does it benefit society that non-Amazon sellers have to either use their competitor's infrastructure to compete with them on sales, or build their own infrastructure while attempting to grow on an unknown platform? Amazon's infrastructure may be meritable, but leveraging it to compete with their own customers is not.

> And further, I don't think explaining away a corporation's dominance by using monopolistic practices is very convincing when they rose to power so recently: how did Amazon get so big in the first place?

So you think that 25-year-old companies can't be monopolies?

> Also, most of the monopolistic practices, of the kind that would allow a company to maintain dominance in spite of merit, are things Amazon is not doing.

Let's I produce and market a product, i.e. the Iron Gym pull up bar that goes in your door frame. I start selling it on Amazon. Amazon then leverages their platform to identify successful products, identifies my Iron Gym pull up bars are successful, creates an Amazon Basics pull up bar that's identical, and uses their platform to boost their pull up bar over mine. So I take all the initiative, do all the work, and take all the risk, and once I show that I have merit, Amazon swoops in and takes all the rewards. How is that not maintaining dominance in spite of merit?

This is just one case. There are many.

> It's monopolistic practices are limited to it's own platform.

And what a limitation that is, being limited to the largest online sales platform in the world!

[logicprog]

> How does it benefit society

In general I don't give a rat's ass about the greater good. I'm far more concerned with what's earned and what's right, since I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not a Culture Mind. But for the sake of civil argument and all that, let's talk about the greater good...

> (now) that Amazon was first to sell stuff online at scale?

You mean letting people reap the rewards of being first, if they can get them, doesn't motivate them to innovate further? Doesn't motivate others to innovate? Doesn't indicate a stable market and encourage investment?

> So you think that 25-year-old companies can't be monopolies?

That's not my point at all! I'm also hard pressed to imagine how you thought it was, but I'll try to be more clear. As I understood it, you were saying that essentially the only reason Amazon is as powerful as it is now is because it acted monopolistically. But to act in such a way, you already have to be in a position of wealth and power, to throw your weight around like that. So my question is, how did Amazon get that powerful originally, so that it could become monopolistic (assuming that it is, now)? My answer is, because it was really good at what it did.

> Let's I produce and market a product, i.e. the Iron Gym pull up bar that goes in your door frame. I start selling it on Amazon. Amazon then leverages their platform to identify successful products, identifies my Iron Gym pull up bars are successful, creates an Amazon Basics pull up bar that's identical, and uses their platform to boost their pull up bar over mine. So I take all the initiative, do all the work, and take all the risk, and once I show that I have merit, Amazon swoops in and takes all the rewards.

Now I'm confused. First, you talk about the greater good and dismiss my comments by saying that's what really matters. Now, all of the sudden, when it comes to companies that aren't Amazon, it's about merit and what you've earned again? How does it serve the good of society (now) for Iron Gym to reap the benefits of being first, to paraphrase a man I met once?

And then, you talk about how they should get the benefits of being first to market--- why should they, but not Amazon? Because Amazon is too successful now?

> How is that not maintaining dominance in spite of merit?

Because the only reason someone would choose Amazon's product instead of theirs is because it's better. Either A) it's cheaper, B) it gets faster shipping, C) it's easier to find, or D) some combination of the three. It's better.

> And what a limitation that is, being limited to the largest online sales platform in the world!

Ha ha. But seriously, my point is that they aren't using the government to crush competitors, or anything of the sort. They are influencing their own product, which they maintain and own.

[kerkeslager]

> In general I don't give a rat's ass about the greater good.

Well, there ya go.

[logicprog]

> Well, there ya go.

Really? That's it? You're not going to actually engage with what I have to say? Not going to defend your mutually contradictory statements? I'm not sure, but the fact that you're left doing another ad homenim and appeal to emotion leaves me thinking that I might have won this argument...

[logicprog]

> Amazon can be an evil empire, AND their opposition can also be evil corporations that do evil things like organize fake grassroots campaigns. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

I'm perfectly aware of that. The point is that everybody is echoing with the message, and not really worried about the delivery at all. Furthermore, if the delivery is suspect here I'm trying to suggest we should examine why we hate Amazon so much, and whether it's justified.

> "Violence" is a word with a meaning, ... If you have to resort to this sort of sophistry to make your point, your point is probably not correct.

I'm aware of that, thank you. If you have to resort to such sophistry maybe your point isn't correct! (Although I'm not actually saying that yet lol)

> and it isn't happening here. No one has been so much as bruised.

Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. Whenever you are trying to use the government to force people to do things, it's from a position of the threat of violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly.

> It's clear that you do not understand the concept of a monopoly.

I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.

[kerkeslager]

> I'm perfectly aware of that. The point is that everybody is echoing with the message, and not really worried about the delivery at all. Furthermore, if the delivery is suspect here I'm trying to suggest we should examine why we hate Amazon so much, and whether it's justified.

So examine it. Your post certainly has done nothing to challenge whatever assumptions you think people are making.

> Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly.

So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay...

> I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.

So examine it. Your post certainly has done nothing to challenge whatever assumptions you think people are making.

[logicprog]

> So examine it. Your post certainly has done nothing to challenge whatever assumptions you think people are making. > So examine it. Your post certainly has done nothing to challenge whatever assumptions you think people are making.

What do you think I'm getting to? And in that very comment I do, as well: I spoke about how it was their right to do what they want with their platform, spoke about how we're criticizing something for being too good and how it conveniently serves the purposes of organizations with alterior motives. Among other things. And there is nothing wrong with trying to start a conversation and shake people out of their preconceived thoughts on the matter, which I demonstrably have succeded at if you read the rest of the thread. The rest of the commentary on the post was becoming a uniform big-company-bashing and I've tangibly changed that. Not good enough, I guess?

Also, it's really not funny to just copy and paste answers like that. I'm taking it as a joke because it's kinda funny and sometimes stuff like that doesn't come through well in a text based medium, but heads up in case you weren't aware that's really passive agressive. (:

> So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay...

Yeah, essentially. Are you going to engage with the point, or are you just going to make fun and appeal to emotion and it's obvious rediculousness?

[tylerl]

>> So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay...

> Yeah, essentially.

Nifty! If all appeals to government intervention are by definition violent, then that would mean that, for example, filing a sexual harassment lawsuit or pressing charges against a kidnapper is actually just, "solving the problem by resorting to violence." That really spices up a headline.

As someone else mentioned, words have meanings. We all (well most of us, apparently) agree that given words refer to specific things. That's how we communicate. Appropriating a word with the desired connotation to an arbitrary definition just because you can find a way in which they're associated -- that's misleading. It's using inapplicable words intentionally, for the purpose of causing others to incorrectly understand what you're talking about.

It turns out we have a special word that refers precisely to that very type of communication: "lying."

[logicprog]

> Nifty! If all appeals to government intervention are by definition violent, then that would mean that, for example, filing a sexual harassment lawsuit or pressing charges against a kidnapper is actually just, "solving the problem by resorting to violence."

Yeah, it is, and that's great! A kidnapper and sexual harasser deserve, morally, to be dealt with with violence, or the threat of it. Do you think that they deserve a gentle hand and a hug? I don't.

The reason I said "resort" in the original post, and the reason I meant it as a bad thing, is because corporations have other, proper, ways of dealing with their competitors. Says they're supposed to use solely, but aren't here. A sexual victem, however, not only has no other recourse (really) but is using the proper route for dealing with it! So yes, they're solving it that way, but that's not a bad thing in this case.

The other thing is that, institutionalized violence usually has a decision mechanism (the judges and the law) and such that make it superior, usually, to regular old violence for actually solving problems. It still retains it's basic nature as violence or the threat of it, but the texture is different. I propose that that's actually why people don't freak out about a lawsuit and such: because it's not vigilante justice, not because it's not violence. We just often forget that it's veiled, controlled violence at all, because our justice system is generally good enough that we don't have to think about it. That's why bringing charges against a sexual harasser or a kidnapper isn't outrageous: we are using violence against them, but we'll be using a mechanism first to decide if it's warranted. My point with saying that in my OG post is just to make people realize what is really trying to be weilded against Amazon. Especially since this sort of decision doesn't really get a level headed hearing usually.

> As someone else mentioned, words have meanings. We all (well most of us, apparently) agree that given words refer to specific things. That's how we communicate. Appropriating a word with the desired connotation to an arbitrary definition just because you can find a way in which they're associated -- that's misleading. It's using inapplicable words intentionally, for the purpose of causing others to incorrectly understand what you're talking about.

Both you and the other guy conveniently forget that I was saying "institutionalized violence" not direct violence. It's like the difference between a threat of violence and the real present thing, but reiefied into an institution. And the way in which they're associated, when qualified by the proper words, makes sense and is clear-- I'm not just redefining violence. But you don't like the definition so you ignore the qualifications so that you can tear it down. Straw-man-style.

Furthermore, your and his reactions to what I've pointed out are interesting. Do you disagree that the government's power is based on the threat of violence? Probably not. You just don't like it called out like that, you prefer to leave it unsaid because it makes the whole thing seem nicer.

But that's my point. I'm not trying to say that the government is evil or bad all the time, or that anyone who uses the government is evil or bad. I'm saying that they're using violence. Sometimes that's warranted. Sometimes its even, in my opinion, morally required. We should just be clear about what we're doing instead of hiding what's really happening under the hood because we don't like how it sounds. The government is a fell weapon, so to speak, not a child's plaything. We should be aware of how we use it and what we tell it to do. Having it deal with sexual harassers and kidnappers (what do you think they'll do, if you win the suit? Arrest them? Fine them? What is an arrest or a fine except force?) is great, and right. Letting it be manipulated by corporations who find it convenient, is probably not.

> It turns out we have a special word that refers precisely to that very type of communication: "lying."

It's actually not. Lying would be using the appropriate words to make someone understand exactly what you're talking about, but just talking about something false, which is not what I'm doing. Using the wrong words so people don't understand what you're saying is called poor communication or a misunderstanding, which I might be guilty of, but that's the worst you could charge me with. Nice ad homenim though. Almost got me!

[kerkeslager]

> > So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay...

> Yeah, essentially.

Amazing! You're literally arguing that 18 U.S. Code § 1111[1] is institutionalized violence.

> Are you going to engage with the point, or are you just going to make fun and appeal to emotion and it's obvious rediculousness?

My general approach to debate is that the person I'm debating with is not going to be persuaded no matter what I do. The person I'm trying to persuade isn't you, it's anyone else reading our conversation. So no, I won't engage this point, because I assume the audience is smart enough to figure why your point is irrelevant on their own. That is what "obvious" means, after all.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

[logicprog]

But it's not irrelevant, and I explain that in my response to the other reply to this. I also explained in that comment what I think of your link and all that, if you want to read it. But sure. I went into this knowing you probably weren't going to be convinced either, but I at least wanted to lay out my thoughts clearly and accurately for you and others to see. I sort of expected a mutual respect from you, but it's (not sarcastic here) fine if you don't want to do that, it's not like you owe anything to me or anything.

I genuinely enjoyed this conversation, you don't meet people on the internet often that are willing to discuss things at length, and I hope you have a good rest of your day!

[gimmeThaBeet]

Personally that's why I tend to like the American anti-trust standard of consumer welfare, and it bothers me that politicians are trying to dislodge it.

It really does bother me when the facets of the complaints against the giants boil down to basically, they're too good at that, or they can do things that others can't. At a blunt level, isn't that the point?

Isn't it what we want? When we talk about services, not petroleum, I find it difficult to see nearly the deep damage that their market positions would cause in a different line of business.

[cat199]

> they can do things that others can't.

when they start to be so influential and market shaping that the 'things they can do that others cant' threatens to be 'sell products effectively enough to survive independently' or 'compete in this space at all, even with massive backing' then no, this is not what we want.

granted, I don't think amazon is there yet, but they are certainly making impact.

[logicprog]

Well said. Exactly!

[adventured]

Large companies always use the government - when they can - to kneecap their competition. It's the very rare exception of a corporation that won't stoop to that level of behavior. There's practically an unlimited number of excuses a company can come up with to rationalize proceeding (with using the government as a leveling club).

It's exactly what many of Microsoft's peers did in the 1990s. They waged a large, persistent campaign across years to convince the government to pursue and break up Microsoft. Larry Ellison went so far as to basically purchase trash from a cleaning company to get at info related to lobbyists supporting Microsoft's position.[1] Some of it was spot on, Microsoft was doing what they claimed; some of it was nothing more than ugly, base envy, jealousy, greed.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/diving-bills-trash-161599

[logicprog]

Exactly. I've always had an issue with the whole incident where everyone went after Microsoft.

[Porthos9K]

Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not have inherent rights. They have powers defined by law[1]. Laws are enacted by governments instituted by the people (you and me) who are sovereign but delegate limited powers in order to live in a society.

Jeff Bezos, as a human being, has intrinsic and inalienable human rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability to run his business under the aegis of a limited-liability corporation is not one of them.

1: A corporation's legally defined powers are generally described as "rights" because people tend to be sloppy in their use of language, do not appreciate correction, and often mistake precision for pedantry.

[Pyxl101]

> Corporations do not have inherent rights.

That's not exactly true. Corporations have many of the same rights. For example, in Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court wrote that:

"The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations (...) The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons'."

(page 25 in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf )

If the First Amendment is the recognition of a right, then corporations have that right, just like natural persons. This concept in the US is called "corporate personhood" and it has long been recognized by courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_...

> In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (...) Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

[SamReidHughes]

Even if “corporate personhood” wasn’t a thing, any form of organization, incorporated or otherwise, like a church, would still have speech rights under the first amendment. “Corporate personhood” isn’t really a single concept under which contracts and land ownership and speech all work the same as if it were a person. It’s a bag of different concepts.

[bilbo0s]

>in the hopes that it will let them use the apparatus of government to hobble said competitor in any way without repercussions

This is the problem nowadays. We can't really trust anybody. The threats to our privacy and freedoms are coming from every quarter.

And the worst part is,

that some of the people and organizations telling us about the threats to our freedoms and privacy, are, in fact, likely the biggest threats to our freedoms and privacy.

[logicprog]

I'm not exactly sure what you think the threats are, but it doesn't matter. This is a very correct sentiment! Well said.

[leereeves]

> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"?

Perhaps people really feel that Amazon is an evil empire regardless of this competitor's actions.

[bilbo0s]

I think the point is that the danger may be more with the competitor than with Amazon.

Or even worse, they're all equally terrible. Which would mean that no matter what we do, we lose privacy and freedoms.

The public is being manipulated into taking actions directly contradictory to its own good either way.

One road to death and despair, the other to disease and destruction.

You could say, "choose wisely", but it doesn't really look like it matters.

[leereeves]

I think we're still better off if we have multiple equally terrible competitors keeping each other in check than one dominant company unrestrained.

[logicprog]

Sure, but using the government to enforce the destruction of competitors and new entrants is the shortest way to that outcome. If Walmart wants to compete, that's great. If they want to destroy their competitors, that's... Less so.

[bilbo0s]

And at the same time, when you do that, you turn a 9mm round that's flying at you, into a shotgun blast.

This whole thing requires more thoughtful consideration. You're talking about "better" off, but we are "best" off without any of the terrible competitors even having the ability to play the game.

Instead of going the anti-trust route for instance, we may just want to make the entire practice of using private data for any commercial reason at all, expressly illegal. Collecting private data at all, should be expressly illegal without the consent of the individual in question. Like a HIPAA-GDPR combo move, except with prison time.

Basically pursuing solutions like that, we should get serious with all these guys.

[dragonwriter]

> Instead, we just go along with this fake-grassroots idea of "oh yeah Amazon is an evil empire"? This doesn't process for me.

The idea predates the astroturfing effort, which glommed on to it because the idea was popular, resilient, and convenient.

The fact that it serves certain other companies’ interests to promote the idea doesn't invalidate it.

[azdacha]

"superior" us what you call forced Prime subscription and tonight's server over-pricing ? Or is it when a company obviously in position or power is still asking for monetary help ?

I'm not sure I agree with your définition of superior.

[dzader]

> And before you talk about how Amazon acts monopolistically by promoting their own or favorite products, it's their platform,

Just like Windows was Microsoft's platform and anyone was free to install whatever browser they wanted... Use Netscape all you want!

[devmunchies]

>Amazon is so superior to the competition

I think too much efficiency in retail allows people to over-consume, and is a net negative for the environment and mental health... so i would support initiatives like this from a purely philosophical worldview.

progress isn't always progress.

[logicprog]

Sure except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view, and not something that is really viable to enforce for a government. It's also not really verifiable on enough cases to make a blanket ruling a good idea. By all means get the word out about overconsumption, but don't have the government force the people to act in their "higher self interest" by removing their ability to get access to efficient retail. I know a lot of people on HN love the idea that people are stupid and we need to regulate them to make them positively free, but that's not a great path to go down for a lot of reasons.

On the environmental side, I think climate change is real, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone says it is, and I find it odd that the solution to every upcoming crisis is always more socialism, and then we get more socialism but it doesn't help and then the date of the crisis passes and we go on to a new one.

[devmunchies]

you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.)

Its not just climate change i care about, it species extinction. I work remote on my own land in the mountains and definitely notice less birds singing.

> except that from a mental health standpoint, that's a highly personal view

suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise

[logicprog]

> you lumped me with the left wing climate change, socialist group but I'm much more skewed toward the right-wing views like Charles Lindbergh, Ted Kaczynski, Pentti Linkola (anti-technological progress, connection to the soil, to your local community, to the seasons, etc.)

Well that's basically just pastoral socialism, and very similar to what the left advocates anyway. I didn't actually know what you believed when I wrote that and tried not to assume, I was more processing my own experience with that. Furthermore my bigger point, using hysterics and fear tactics to push an agenda, still stands.

> suicide rates and drug addiction in our modern society say otherwise

Is that because of overconsumption though?