House Lawmakers Condemn Big Tech’s ‘Monopoly Power’ and Urge Their Breakups

from NYTs

House lawmakers who spent the last 16 months investigating the practices of the world’s largest technology companies said on Tuesday that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google had exercised and abused their monopoly power and called for the most sweeping changes to antitrust laws in half a century.

In a 449-page report that was presented by the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic leadership, lawmakers said the four companies had turned from “scrappy” start-ups into “the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons.” The lawmakers said the companies had abused their dominant positions, setting and often dictating prices and rules for commerce, search, advertising, social networking and publishing.

To amend the inequities, the lawmakers recommended restoring competition by effectively breaking up the companies, emboldening the agencies that police market concentration and throwing up hurdles for the companies to acquire start-ups. They also proposed reforming antitrust laws, in the biggest potential shift since the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 created stronger reviews of big mergers.

“Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition, improves innovation and safeguards our democracy,” Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and chairman of the judiciary committee, and David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a joint statement.

The House report is the most significant government effort to check the world’s largest tech companies since the government sued Microsoft for antitrust violations in the 1990s. It offers lawmakers a deeply researched road map for turning criticism of Silicon Valley’s influence into concrete actions.

More here.

Posted in Business, Law and tagged , , , , , , .

18 Comments

  1. We’ve all seen clips of Mark Zuckerberg in front of Congress and we all know it became something to laugh at. In the wild west of social media and online platforms it is hard to know what is okay and what is not, and it is even harder for some of the older house lawmakers to conceptualize what these tech companies are even doing. However, House Democrats have released a 449 page document in which they list the ways that Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon have committed monopoly-like business decisions and they have created a need to reform antitrust laws. It’s hard to imagine any other search engine other than Google, which shows it is a great product; what we don’t think about is exactly how uncompetitive the entire market is because big tech companies have exclusively bought up the space.

    The changes being proposed to the antitrust laws are of a size that hasn’t been seen since 1976, big enough to put a leash on these tech companies that are compared to oil tycoons of the industrial age. I agree with that descriptor because the tech world is an entire new age of discovery and industry: it’s the digital age. The tech companies are undeniably gripping their respective fields with iron holds and buying out any competition, employing very anti-competitive tactics to be the only business that matters. Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon all put out statements on how they are only benefiting the world and the industry by utilizing tech giant power, and/or they have tons of competition that is biasedly being ignored. I agree with the tech giants in part, they do have competition, specifically Apple does and facebook (and their many other social media IPs) has competition in very specific countries. Yet, the lawmakers that have been investigating these companies for the past 16 months have very sound evidence that these companies have been unethical in their development of the industry.

    I would be interested to see how the democratic subcommittee that has put together a report would handle these companies. Their evidence and data is very sound and I agree with a lot of their ideas for reform. Many republican lawmakers disagree on that front, finding the concepts of company restructuring, company acquisitions, and business model reframing to be too radical. I think big changes need to be made for the industry to thrive and not be completely dominated in certain areas. When I see movements for change in antitrust laws and bolstering of tech centered government agencies I see a hope for a better industry (keeping in mind not going down a slippery slope of regulation).

  2. Big Tech’s ‘Monopoly Power’ is apparent, “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate.” It is an observation made by Tom Goodwin in 2015, These companies’ power and influences came from accumulating small companies that chart high on popularity and expanding them to gain profit, for instance, many don’t know that big communication and media such as what’s app and Instagram is owned by Facebook, this goes to show that Big Tech companies have mostly evolved into firms rather than based on technological advancement. Big Media companies like Facebook, are essentially empty shells and focuses on investment, and in doing so, it creates the influence that is equivalent to monopoly power. The balance of power between the different service layers is a jostle for control. Price-comparison sites first seemed to provide welcome traffic to airlines before airlines tried and failed to starve them of their business and promoted their own apps and websites as the preferred route. But it was too late. Services like Ocado once offered a symbiotic relationship with supermarkets, yet now supermarkets fear the power that such companies get when they get closer to the customer.

  3. This article touches on some important questions about the power that a few big tech companies hold. Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook are all extremely large companies with immense power. In fact, Google has become so popular that the word “google” has even become a verb that is synonymous with searching something online. However, the power and influence that these companies have goes largely unchallenged. Because the industry is still relatively new, there are few laws and regulations regarding the actions made by many tech companies. People are just beginning to realize the dangers of having so few companies hold almost all of the market share for the services they provide. Many customers wouldn’t even think to try to use another search engine if they experienced a problem with Google or shop on another site if something was sold out on Amazon. Facebook and Apple have similar loyalty from (and control over) their customers. With this level of dominance in the market, it is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about whether or not these companies are abusing their power.

    The tech giant status which these companies have achieved gives them incredibly large power over product prices and consumers. Amazon is often the only site that customers use to purchase products online. This is great for businesses who are able to sell their products on Amazon, but also bad if they only ever show up on the third page of search results. Many customers don’t even look past the first page of results, so any business with a product that isn’t favored by the search algorithm may lose out on potential sales. However, with Amazon being the primary sales platform for a huge amount of customers, many businesses don’t have another choice. Also, Google controls an overwhelming amount of online search results. They have the ability to control which results people see and which ads they are shown. However, two people who type the exact same thing could be shown different autofill results based on their browsing history. There is nothing stopping the company from showing their users completely different results for the same search. Next, Apple is the main competitor for smartphones and other smart devices. Any app developer who wants to be successful has to make their apps available in the Apple app store. Finally, Facebook controls two of the most popular social media sites for sharing images, with almost no competition. Although these companies argue that their products help consumers, monopolies (or whatever you want to call these large, powerful companies) are never good for the consumer. With more competition, there could be lower prices and more product diversity shown to the consumers. One thing that most people can agree on is that something needs to be done to limit the power that these companies have.

  4. The question of whether big tech companies have too much power has been looking for years. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are a massive corporation with many subsidiaries. I believe that now is the time to be concerned about the power they hold. The article states that these companies have now turned into the type of entities one would see in the era of overbearing monopolies. This has not been the first time they’ve violated antitrust laws, however. Microsoft was sued by the government in the 1990s for violating antitrust laws. In the 449-page report discussed in the article, lawmakers are pushing to restore competition by breaking up the companies.

    Many other representatives have voiced their disagreements with the idea of breaking up the companies. While it is important to ensure that the tech giants are following the law, completely disbanding them all together is unnecessary. Just as Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican of Colorado states, I believe that this should really be the “nuclear option.” These companies provide services that are invaluable to everyday users. Everyone you know probably uses Google, Facebook, or Amazon. They are mainstream for a reason. They provide the best service compared to their competitors.

    I think that a better solution is to focus on the anti-competitive practices exhibited by the companies. Amazon, Apple, and Google all offer products from third parties on their virtual stores. However, it has been proven that they recommend and push their products ahead of any other competitors. There is nothing wrong with advertising your own product on the front page of your website. However, when it comes to which product is recommended to the customer, it should be the one that consumers buy and value the most.

    As for the acquisitions made by these companies, it is a difficult situation. In the free market, innovation and new ideas are what should make a company attractive to customers. However, when you are part of a group of companies collectively valued at over $5 trillion, perhaps you can just buy innovation.

  5. This article about Big Tech’s “monopoly power” comes at a crucial time in American History. We are amidst a historic pandemic, and we are ending a historic year with one of the most important elections in recent history. We are now less than two weeks from the election. Every political story that arises before the election causes mass hysteria. This story is coming out just a few days after twitter censored a post from the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s emails. This however, doesn’t involve that. Recently, a 449-page report was presented by the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic leadership. According to the article “The lawmakers said the companies had abused their dominant positions, setting and often dictating prices and rules for commerce, search, advertising, social networking and publishing.” Lawmakers recommended breaking up the companies and even proposed anti-trust laws. If there are more anti-trust laws put in place, it would be historic in that we would be seeing a new classification of monopoly. Companies like Amazon are essentially monopolizing online business. They have the most affordable prices, and users are amazed with the convenience and capability of amazon prime 1-2 day shipping. Personally, I use amazon frequently to purchase a variety of things from technology to clothes to food. This House report is the most significant government effort to target the big tech companies since the government sued Microsoft for antitrust violations in the 90s. One of the questions being raised is whether these firms view themselves as above the law. There have been proposals from Democrats and republicans, and there have been mixed proposals as well. The report itself contains the word monopoly nearly 120 separate times. The report is targeted at Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. The problem some have is the lack of regulation. Personally, I am normally a fan of limited government and minimum regulation. However, In this instance, I think the government needs to step up and ensure that the users of social media platforms have the right to privacy and free speech. Plus, some of these online industries are monopolizing and that needs to be regulated. Monopoly kills small business and competition, and American values don’t align with those of monopolies.

  6. With the upcoming election, it is important for voters to be aware of how major companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple are exercising their power. These four companies went from being created as a startup to monopolies that effectively have been controlling the internet, technology industry, and the online shopping industry. They collectively regulate the markets by determining prices that small businesses may have trouble competing with. I think the idea the lawmakers had would prove to be successful, that is if they were actually able to pull it off. I think it is going to be a while before these billion-dollar companies are going to agree to (or be forced into) breaking up into smaller firms.

    Anti-trust laws are statutes given by governments to businesses that regulate their actions so they cannot engage in unfair practices, which is the way lawmakers want to break up these companies. Many heads have turned recently especially for Facebook and its predatory behavior due to political involvement. Zuckerberg refuses to hire fact-checking agencies without a bias foundation, making the consumer (viewer) feel taken advantage of if presented with incorrect information. By creating these laws, Congress would be restoring competition in the respective markets.

    I think one of the main reasons why there is currently a problem enforcing these laws is because of the political party divide. Most of the time each party has their beliefs and that is it – they have o interest in hearing what the other party has to say because they stay firm with their beliefs. However, when it comes to our democracy, I would hope politics will not get in the way and they can focus on restoring our democracy. For example, the article states that Democrats call for the reconstruction of the companies, which would, in turn, redistribute each sector’s place in the market. However, only a few Republicans agree. Most Republicans do not want Congress to get involved in business antics – apparently, even if they are a threat to our democracy.

  7. Every day, I use at least one product or service created by a Big Tech company. I have an Apple iPhone, my main web browser of choice is Google Chrome, and I occasionally make purchases using Amazon. In many regards, these companies have developed and diversified themselves so much that it is hard to always know the scope and magnitude of their business ventures consistently. Some people believe that by only having a few companies governing many of the products or services they buy, it is more convenient and sometimes even cheaper. While this may be true, as Apple and Google have hundreds of interconnected services available for users of their products (maps, music, apps, etc), there is increasing worry about the monopolization of these companies.

    When a monopoly is formed in any industry, they can control the selling price of their products or services because they have exclusive possession of the supply of the specific products or services in question. As Big Tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google create products and services that are in complete control of the market, there is a threat of monopolization. Anti-trust laws were created in the 20th century in response to one of the most famous cases of monopolization in American history – Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Before these antitrust laws were put into place, companies within industries had little to no interference from state or federal governments. Regulatory processes forced large market companies to break and to allow competition to work the way it should. Competition allows for more innovation and lower prices while monopolization prevents the first and increases the latter.

    I am glad to hear that our current representatives in the federal government are making attempts to break apart the Big Tech companies who stealthfully threaten us with monopolization. As described in the New York Times article, new antitrust laws must be established to keep these enormous companies in check and to protect the general public from the potential hazards associated with monopolies. The report created and presented by the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic leadership provides proof and rationale as to the need for modernized antitrust laws to prevent these Big Tech companies from hurting the economy and the citizens of the world. While the Democratic leadership is beginning to play their part, I hope to see a bipartisan attempt at all levels of the federal government to curb Big Tech monopolization. There is a clear need for government intervention in regards to the Big Tech industry as more is at stake than many every day tech users would see at face value.

  8. Technology innovation has exploded in recent years and a handful of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple have taken major advantages in finding new ways to utilize technology in their respective businesses. The growth of these companies also comes with the concern about how much market share they have. Google, for example, has a monopolistic-like market share on the search engine market, being the most visited website in the world and even working its way into becoming a verb in human vernacular. Likewise, Amazon has massive power in several industries, like e-commerce and cloud computing, as well as being a primary income source for around 37% of third-party sellers. The monopolistic nature of the four companies attracted the attention of Congress, where the House Judiciary Committee conducted a 16-month investigation into the use of monopoly power by these companies, concluding in a 449-page report, as reported on by the New York Times.

    The report compares the actions of big tech companies to those of the oil companies of the 19th century, which was coincidentally the last time major antitrust action was taken in the United States. I am all for the break-up or restructuring of these massive big tech companies, as they not only continue to stifle competition with smaller tech companies and continue to act as if their actions bring about competition. My main fear for this movement is that members of Congress will make this fight against big tech political, as some Republican members like Jim Jordan have made it. Jordan alleges that because the report ignores alleged political bias present in big tech companies, this renders the report self-discrediting.

    It astounds me that some members of Congress think like Jim Jordan. They see companies stifling competition in an industry by buying up other companies and fully taking control of operations and they choose to prioritize theories of bias and play political games. I am glad that this is only a minority opinion amongst Congress and I hope Congress can start taking a stand with small companies and even up market share in the tech industry. If members of Congress would rather engage in petty political fights rather than make an effort to protect small businesses, that shines a menacing light on where their priorities lie. Big tech will not face proper consequences unless Congress unifies and takes a stand against monopolization.

  9. We are entering an entirely new era of conducting business in the United States. During the pandemic, companies have had to make significant adjustments to their business models in order to survive. Small businesses were particularly hit the hardest, with thousands of them shuttering their doors permanently. Though a large hole will open up in the heart of Main Street, USA, there are hardly any broken hearts on Wall Street. American billionaires are reporting record profits in the midst of a public health catastrophe. At the heart of the gains are America’s tech giants: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and Netflix, among others.

    These companies are thriving while people are stuck at home throughout the day. Facebook and Twitter give people an endless stream of news and memes to scroll through. Google provides just about everything from YouTube’s streaming services to email services to its hallmark search engine. Amazon negates any need to travel to a store and risk catching COVID-19. And Netflix offers people practically endless TV and movie content to enjoy in their downtime. In light of this context, it becomes quite clear why these companies are thriving. There’s little to no risk of catching the coronavirus in using their products and services. To many people, these companies offer consumer a spot of light to avoid the darkness of America’s multi-front crises.

    As these companies continue to grow in sheer size and scope, historical precedent dictates that the government will have to intervene unless the market magically evaporates their market power. There are two major cases in which anti-trust power has been used to break up a company: Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and AT&T. Standard Oil acquired its monopoly through a number of aggressive and predatory practices, many of which would be illegal today. They put the squeeze on railroads for low transport costs, and they launched numerous anti-competitive practices to force smaller oil barons out of the market. This is where the term “robber baron” originates. AT&T’s case was slightly different. In most circumstances, AT&T abided by the law and didn’t behave unethically. They argued they were a “natural monopoly.” When the government suddenly decided to take action against AT&T, it was ultimately due to a shift in government priorities to promote competition in telecommunications.
    https://www.nowlandlaw.com/famous-antitrust-cases-of-the-last-century/

    So what should the government do in this circumstance? There are talks of trust-busting and forcing these politically unpopular companies to break up, and this is on both sides of the aisle. I would argue that the best solution for this situation is less of a focus on anti-trust and more of a focus on tax policy. We ultimately have a tax structure that allows wealth accumulation amongst the nation’s richest individuals. Such accumulation is much rarer with lower income brackets. I feel we should offer more tax incentives to entrepreneurs and small businesses instead of subsidizing corporate industry. I also think wealth taxes and maximum wage policies like those implemented in Europe should be considered. In addition to the budget deficits and programs we currently have, we also have trillions of dollars of debt to pay off as a country. It’s not going to get paid by cutting rich people’s taxes, and it certainly should not be paid on the backs of middle class workers.

  10. Conglomerate tech companies, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon are now so large that they are being compared to the oil barons of the industrial age. Now, due to their size and their massive influence in the market, antitrust laws are being revised to assist in loosening the grip over smaller companies. Being that the industry is still in fledgling stages of development, new laws and regulations still have to be made to ensure that competitiveness still exists within the market. Smaller businesses are kept in a strangle-hold by these large companies, considering that these smaller businesses must often go through these large companies in order to have a presence in the market. App developers have very little choice but to go through Apple to reach customers. Apple still takes a 30% cut of profits made from the app. Google is the search engine that is most commonly used by anyone who wants information about a topic of their interest; other search engines are both incomparable in quality and receive significantly less traction. Millions of sellers are dependent on Amazon to reach their customers. Amazon also pushes their own products above the products of smaller competitors, essentially contributing to stifling their business opportunities. Facebook controls the biggest social media companies and has more power now than what could have been imaginable only a couple decades ago.

    These conglomerate tech companies argue that their business only helps the consumer, however, monopolies have rarely ever demonstrated themselves to be completely beneficial. Monopolies usually involve raising prices for consumers, leaving consumers with little ability for recourse considering that the monopolized company is inherently the only option for consumers in regards to attaining their goods and/or services of choice. These companies should be restricted from essentially owning the market; smaller companies should have more opportunity to gain traction online. If smaller companies gain more opportunity, consumers will consequentially see more product diversity and lower prices. Limiting the power of these conglomerate tech companies is the first step to fixing the balance of power in the tech industry.

  11. The monopolization of big tech industrials is something that I have written a lot about this year. Big tech companies like the ones mentioned, Apple Google Amazon, and Facebook, have become so large that they do not only monopolize their given industries, but they also have begun to monopolize consumers as well. The article explains that these scrappy little companies have become the kinds of monopolies that were seen in the era of the oil barons and railroad tycoons. Not only do the consumers have very little choice in the industry, but the consumer is also at the will of the company for the service that they provide. For example, Facebook is one of the biggest social media platforms, and when they change their policies consumers do not have the opportunity to object and uses a different platform. Instead, the consumer must agree with the demands of the company if they would like to continue using their social media accounts.
    I believe that lawmaker’s suggestion of breaking up the companies is the right decision. Something must be done because with every day that passes these companies become more and more profitable, which makes them more and more powerful. I also believe that requiring restrictions on the ability of these said companies to acquire start-ups would be very beneficial. All these companies have a policy of acquiring any company which begins to take up a given amount of their market share. When Instagram first hit the scene it became very popular, and not shortly after this popularity Facebook acquired the company. YouTube was an extremely popular video sharing site, but when given the opportunity were acquired by Google. This is not usually a problem is a bigger company buys out a smaller company or fast-growing company. The problem comes into play when the bigger company now owns the majority of the market in their given industry.
    Another point that was raised in the article was that these companies’ behaviors make it questionable if they in fact view themselves as being above the law. This can be seen in the company Facebook and Google very easily. Both of these companies have been under fire recently for the way that they use public information to censor specific things from that person. Google does this by not allowing certain things to come up in search results and Facebook accomplishes this by not showing users specific posts or censoring the post altogether. These large companies can get away with this because they currently do not have any competition where the consumer could go to as an alternative.

  12. Monopolies are not legal in the Us due for a few reasons and the biggest one is competition. When one firm, a few single firms, control and entire market they are able to set the price of products due to there being no alternative options. While this is great for businesses as they can change any price, they want and consumers will still buy it, for you and me this is horrible. This article talks about companies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google and for good reason. These companies have a huge market cap on the products they make and are limiting the options for other smaller firms to enter this market. To many of us, this has become second nature to see Apple creating phones, ordering everything on Amazon, using Google as your search engine, and having every social media bought or come from Facebook. If you take a step back you can see the issue, but it can be hard to do so by just going with the flow of the world. This 449-page report brings up some really good points about what makes a monopoly unfair. They can set the rules and pricing when it comes to there contracts. This is true, if you can’t use google because you don’t agree with the terms and conditions, a lot of the internet is useless. YouTube, Google search, Google Docs, Gmail, your school email which is run through Gmail, any account you have linked through Google is useless and that is a lot of the internet. When we look at Amazon, they are slowly entering into ever market now, obviously being E-commerce but now groceries and automotive. They are also becoming more global and not just US based. Facebook is huge in the aspect they make the rules and standards for other social media platforms. Apple is also expanding into new areas but is so dominant in the phone market. More than 80% of the people I know have an iPhone as compared to any phone and I think it is the same for most people.

    I do see the value is trying to gain size and market cap, that’s the goal of any business! But it was a fair market those companies where just starting up. They had fair competition and that’s what led to a lot of their success was competing with other firms to rise to the top. It would be unfair for new companies wishing to enter the same market, denied solely based on the monopoly these firms have created. That is what is great about our system, is new companies and ideas are formed everyday to add value where it is needed, not so a few companies can control the market.

  13. One thing to note is that in the United States, pure monopolies are not illegal. Antitrust laws do not outlaw monopolies as a whole. It is understood that some companies will do better than others and the ones who do not perform as well, will end up stopping productions or maybe even sell out to a better performing company. “Criminalized monopolies” are illegal. Another large factor within the antitrust laws established is that they are pretty outdated to deal with our online form of companies. I think antitrust laws should be more updated if they want to allow for more competition within the industries because times have changed and the way we perform acts of purchasing, selling, and advertising are all different now.
    A reporter tried to avoid her use of big tech companies: Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook. She reported that the hardest companies to avoid using were Google and Amazon. Many websites use Google “to supply its fonts, run its ads, track its users, or determine if its users were humans or bots.” Many websites use Amazon’s Web Services to run their sites. Neflix, uses Amazon’s Web Services, therefore, Netflix and Amazon Prime were unable for the reporter to use. We do not realize how much of the internet revolves around these four monopolies. It does not allow for any competition, but they have built their companies in fairness. They do deserve the privileges that go along with having that company.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/technology/blocking-the-tech-giants.html

    • Hi Amanda, you make a great point. The fact that monopoies are not strictly illegal means that what the government can do in this situation is not as far reaching as perhaps they would like. I think that it will be interesting to follow this story and see what kind of actions are taken here.

  14. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon are some of (if not) the biggest names in technology, but how big is too big? Recently House lawmakers have said that these companies have “exercised and abused their monopoly power” (Kang & McCabe) and called for a revamp of our country’s antitrust laws. In addition, they are looking to make it more difficult for companies of a certain magnitude to acquire startups, which would help to prevent them continuing their exponential growth which has led to monopolies.

    This issue, like most things these days, has split the house along party lines. Democrats want to take a drastic approach and force the restructuring of the tech giants and “forbid them from operating in similar businesses to those they were already dominant in” (Kang & McCabe). While most Republicans find that idea to be alarming and do not want to interfere in restructuring companies and their business models. The only thing that seems to have agreement from both sides is that we need stronger funding for antitrust enforcement agencies.

    Personally, I struggle to pick a side in this argument. I don’t believe that the government should tell businesses how to operate unless they are taking part in illegal activities or have questionable ethics practices. However I also understand why monopolies should be avoided, one company with too much power is not a positive thing. I feel that the middle ground likes in making it more difficult for large companies to continue their rapid acquisitions, and that the antitrust laws need to be increase and enforced.

  15. Monopoly power is a real thing some of these multi-billionaire millionaire companies make so much money yet do you know they have no investments towards the product that makes them money. For example you have Facebook which is a very popular social media company but yet makes no content for their social media. You have Uber who is the largest taxi company in the world yet they own no vehicles to supply for Uber. It’s crazy how when you think about it Uber, the largest taxi company in the world Doesn’t own any vehicles? Yes it’s true people who use Uber have their own vehicles that they go around picking up others and sending around like a taxi. All Uber does is supply jobs for these “chauffeurs”. These monopoly power companies use a smart tactic to make their self profit, gain more popularity, and make sure no other companies get ahead of them. How these companies do that is by creating other smaller companies related to their brands and use those smaller advertisements to advertise for their bigger company. For example Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp using those two platforms to campaign for Facebook they have complete control over the way the media uses their platforms because there are no other runner ups that aren’t owned by Facebook and are as good/ran efficiently as facebook.

  16. While Monopoly’s hold a lot of power in the business world, hence why it is illegal to have an anti-competitive monopoly. In the case of Big Tech here, it’s not even a real monopoly. Companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are massive but have competitors. Amazon has websites like ebay, Apple has Samsung, Facebook has Twitter, and Google has Bing and Yahoo. Sure they are incredibly successful, but they are not monopolies. These brands succeed because their products and websites are well put together and have become the household names by being quality. These companies should not be punished for being so well put together that the majority of the world’s population prefers them to any of the alternatives. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook on the other hand, may be looking to start a social media Monopoly with the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram in 2012. This seems more apparent and should be looked into more, because if Facebook bought out it’s other competitors, then no other company can compete.

  17. Companies like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been the biggest names in the tech market for quite some time now. All four of these companies are unique in their own ways. Apple has their smartphones and computers, Amazon has the largest online marketplace in the world, Facebook provides a great social network for people to communicate, and Google allows people to get a response to any question or problem with their speedy search engine. I personally think all of these companies are great. I use all four all the time to purchase products, communicate, or look different things up. However, the House Judiciary Committee condemns these four companies saying that they abuse their monopoly power and urge them to break up. I personally disagree with the House’s decision. It is not these companies’ fault that they formed a monopoly. They provide great products and services to consumers around the world and do it better than any other company out there. It is the people around the country and around the world that love these companies so much because they are the ones that spend the money and keep them in business. I can definitely see why Google, Amazon, and Apple are in the discussion, but I do not necessarily get why Facebook is. I mean after all, it is just a social networking website and there are many other large names in the industry like Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Tik Tok, and LinkedIn. I really do not think it is fair for the House to decide this. These companies are doing nothing wrong. The only reason the House wants this to happen is so that competition can increase again. An economy always prospers when competition is high in a certain industry. By breaking these companies up, they hope to increase competition again with smaller countries. I personally think that nothing will really happen with this as it is really just the opinion of some people on the Committee. These companies should just carry on with their daily business and should not have to worry about changing their ways because some think they have too much power in the tech industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *