6 ms·

"This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not.

by kanobo 6y ago

"This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not." I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics if the same company got large.

debacle 6y ago
You should not shame and criticize Apple for being anticompetitive, you should lament that the US is not a fair playing field when it comes to anti-trust investigations. Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.
- kanobo 6y ago
  That's why I try to reflect on my feelings when I can because they aren't rational. I have to remind myself it's the fiduciary duty of companies to take legal advantage of any opportunity the law gives it.
  - macintux 6y ago
    I’m not confident that’s an accurate description. Companies are certainly beholden to their shareholders, but e.g. there’s no legal requirement to maximize profits. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
    - kanobo 6y ago
      Thanks for the link! Looks like I was holding on to an assumption I never actually verified.
      - macintux 6y ago
        It’s a common assumption.
- blackoil 6y ago
  That is not a pragmatic view. Law works on assumption that most of the society will follow them (under moral or social pressure) and few rogue people will be punished appropriately. If everyone starts breaking the law, no Police/Govt will be able to contain it.
munchbunny 6y ago
That gets at the crux of the problem: hyper-competitive behavior can become anti-competitive when you are powerful enough and have enough leverage to make anti-competitive behavior part of your strategy. The line between "anti-competitive" and "hyper-competitive" today isn't a line, it's a big messy gray area. It's pretty hard for an underdog or tiny startup to be anti-competitive because they simply don't have the leverage to do it. They can still be dishonest or immoral, it's just hard to be monopolistic when you're not anywhere close to being a monopoly.
jtokoph 6y ago
Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick. Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it. Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires. Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.
- rileymat2 6y ago
  Besides for the employee/contractor stuff, I thought Uber was mostly exploiting a legal loophole for cars for hire v. hailed taxi distinction.
save_ferris 6y ago
The problem is that we’re terrible at assessing the morality of companies. We tend not to care about what startups do, even though the “doing whatever it takes” mentality sometimes leads to deeply concerning behavior (i.e. Instacart/door dash tipping dark patterns, Zoom security practices, online advertising startups generally, etc.) Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved. The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.
jgon 6y ago
I think that's ok though. I think that we handicap ourselves by trying to find universalizing systems and rules, and then throwing our hands up when we can't do so. I also think that this sort of thing is tacitly encouraged by incumbents because usually giving up benefits them. Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences. The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently. Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.
baby 6y ago
A lot of things are totally fine until they get too large (cancer). A lot of the time, the only rule for healthy ecosystem is that players don’t get too big. Players getting too big means monopoly, cartel, etc.

by kanobo 6y ago

debacle 6y ago

You should not shame and criticize Apple for being anticompetitive, you should lament that the US is not a fair playing field when it comes to anti-trust investigations. Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.

kanobo 6y ago
That's why I try to reflect on my feelings when I can because they aren't rational. I have to remind myself it's the fiduciary duty of companies to take legal advantage of any opportunity the law gives it.
- macintux 6y ago
  I’m not confident that’s an accurate description. Companies are certainly beholden to their shareholders, but e.g. there’s no legal requirement to maximize profits. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
  - kanobo 6y ago
    Thanks for the link! Looks like I was holding on to an assumption I never actually verified.
    - macintux 6y ago
      It’s a common assumption.
blackoil 6y ago
That is not a pragmatic view. Law works on assumption that most of the society will follow them (under moral or social pressure) and few rogue people will be punished appropriately. If everyone starts breaking the law, no Police/Govt will be able to contain it.

munchbunny 6y ago

That gets at the crux of the problem: hyper-competitive behavior can become anti-competitive when you are powerful enough and have enough leverage to make anti-competitive behavior part of your strategy. The line between "anti-competitive" and "hyper-competitive" today isn't a line, it's a big messy gray area. It's pretty hard for an underdog or tiny startup to be anti-competitive because they simply don't have the leverage to do it. They can still be dishonest or immoral, it's just hard to be monopolistic when you're not anywhere close to being a monopoly.

jtokoph 6y ago

Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.

save_ferris 6y ago
> If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick. Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it. Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires. Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.
rileymat2 6y ago
Besides for the employee/contractor stuff, I thought Uber was mostly exploiting a legal loophole for cars for hire v. hailed taxi distinction.

save_ferris 6y ago

The problem is that we’re terrible at assessing the morality of companies. We tend not to care about what startups do, even though the “doing whatever it takes” mentality sometimes leads to deeply concerning behavior (i.e. Instacart/door dash tipping dark patterns, Zoom security practices, online advertising startups generally, etc.) Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved. The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.

jgon 6y ago

I think that's ok though. I think that we handicap ourselves by trying to find universalizing systems and rules, and then throwing our hands up when we can't do so. I also think that this sort of thing is tacitly encouraged by incumbents because usually giving up benefits them. Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences. The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently. Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.

baby 6y ago

A lot of things are totally fine until they get too large (cancer). A lot of the time, the only rule for healthy ecosystem is that players don’t get too big. Players getting too big means monopoly, cartel, etc.