互联网与文化lareviewofbooks.org
反垄断：应对 Google 与 Facebook 的不性感答案
Trust-Busting as the Unsexy Answer to Google and Facebook
2019 — 2021，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇评论文章主张，对谷歌和Facebook这类科技巨头，反垄断拆分虽然不吸引眼球，却可能是比零散监管更根本的答案。文章借助AT&T等历史案例，讨论垄断如何形成、为何难以用传统消费者福利标准衡量，以及拆分能否恢复竞争。
为什么经久不衰：它把“拆分科技巨头”从口号拉回历史与制度细节，而评论区围绕AT&T案例和可操作性的争论今天仍不过时。
HN 评论精选
与其拆分，不如先废除CFAA等法律障碍，允许第三方应用制衡平台。
与其反垄断拆分，为什么不先放松禁止第三方应用开发的联邦法律？对第三方应用的限制是法律而非技术。构建一个收集Facebook凭证并呈现替代视图和功能的应用在技术上并不难，例如终于可以看到按时间顺序排列的朋友帖子（Facebook不允许，因为会降低参与度）。这类应用会对Facebook的市场主导地位构成威胁和制衡，也可能减少其收入。是什么阻止了？在美国主要是CFAA：一旦Facebook正式要求公司停止访问其服务器，继续访问就违反联邦法律。在仍有联邦法律鼓励并固化单一供应商主导地位时，追求反垄断行动似乎为时过早。
kauffj查看英文原文
Rather than trust busting, why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications? The limits on third-party apps are legal, not technical. It is not technically challenging to build an application that collects Facebook credentials and then presents alternative views and features. It could, for example, finally be possible to see a time-ordered view of your friends' posts (Facebook doesn't allow this since it reduces engagement). The development of such applications would serve as a threat and check on the market dominance of Facebook. A popular third-party application could consider adding its own features that Facebook does not have. It would also reduce Facebook's revenue. What stops this? In the US, it is primarily the CFAA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act). Once Facebook formally tells a company to stop accessing their servers, they are in violation of federal law if they continue to do so. It seems premature to pursue trust busting action while we still have federal laws that encourage and cement the dominance of a single provider.
反垄断需超越消费者福利标准，关注收购与注意力/数据竞争。
正如文章所说，加强反垄断审查的主要催化剂将是思维从“消费者福利”视角转变。大体上，大型科技公司提供极好的服务，我想不出另一个行业的产品有今天科技公司这么好。是的，亚马逊可能有假货，DuckDuckGo在某些场景可能比谷歌好，但对多数消费者这些公司服务优秀。我们确实需要对收购更多审查：谷歌能收购YouTube、Facebook能收购Instagram，显示监管者缺乏远见。也许因为拆分标准石油时垄断更具体：石油公司拥有油田、铁路、炼油厂整个栈。科技一切是数据游戏，谷歌（搜索引擎）和YouTube（视频网站）看似不同行业，但最终竞争的主要资源是注意力和数据。
40acres查看英文原文
As talked about in this article, I think the main catalyst to increased anti-trust scrunity will be a mind shift away from the "consumer welfare" view of anti-trust. For the most part, big tech companies provide amazing service. I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. Yes there may be some fakes on Amazon, and DDG in some use cases may be better than Google, but for the majority of consumers these companies provide excellent service. We really need more scrunity when it comes to acquisitions, the fact that Google was able to acquire YouTube and Facebook was able to acquire Instagram shows a real lack of foresight on regulators. Perhaps this is because when you're busting up Standard Oil you have more tangible view of what the monopoly looks like: the oil company owns the fields, the railroads, the refineries, the whole damn stack. When it comes to tech everything is a data play, Google (a search engine) and YouTube (a video site) look like distinct industry, but at the end of the day the main resource being competed for is attention and data.
AT&T案例中创新与开放更多来自FCC监管和1996年非捆绑，而非1984年拆分本身。
文章说“1984年AT&T被拆分时，大量新产品上市，从第一台答录机到早期ISP。”但RBOC是本地垄断，开放网络并非拆分的结果。直到1996年本地环路非捆绑、允许CLEC出现，它们才有竞争；交换条件是若证明本地竞争，可进入长途市场。是FCC监管允许非认证设备互联。1960至70年代，FCC逐步放松对电话终端设备（如听筒、PBX）的监管，即CPE。
jpollock查看英文原文
"when AT&T was broken up in 1984, a torrent of new products came on the market, everything from the first answering machines to early ISPs." Since the RBOCs were local monopolies, it wasn't the breakup which resulted in the opening of the network. They didn't have competition until 1996, when the local loop was unbundled, allowing CLECs to appear. The tradeoff was that if they could demonstrate local competition, they were allowed to enter the long distance market. It was FCC regulation which allowed interconnection of non-approved devices [1]. "In the 1960s and 1970s, the FCC gradually relaxed regulation of telephone terminal equipment (e.g., telephone handsets, private branch exchanges), known as customer premises equipment (CPE)." [1] https://www.nap.edu/read/10235/chapter/11#298 [2] http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistory/ [3] https://www.mackinac.org/6033
文章缺乏可操作的拆分方案，地理拆分不适用于搜索，剥离YouTube也不产生竞争。
这类文章的问题是没有一条可操作步骤说明如何拆分这些垄断。很多是“我们拆分过电力和电话提供商，所以也该对谷歌这样做”。你可以把国家公用事业按地理区域拆分，本地通话或电费进入所在区域口袋，跨区通话按长途协议进入双方口袋，至少可行。或把有500口井/特许权的石油公司拆成5组各100，或把全国铁路网拆成5个区域网，也行。过去拆分垄断是这么做的。现在对谷歌搜索怎么操作？阻止A地区的人加载B地区网站？这是我们要的吗？当然有低垂果实，比如没理由把YouTube这样的视频垄断和搜索垄断放在一起，我支持。但那样只是两个垄断，没解决视频或搜索缺乏竞争的问题，而这本是行动的理由。事实上AT&T拆分后长途消费痛点正是反垄断法改变的原因：现在必须证明消费者损害才能通过宪法审查。
rsj_hn查看英文原文
The problem with these types of articles is that it doesn't contain a single actionable step on how one would go about breaking up these monopolies. It's a lot of "well, we did it with the electrical providers and telephone providers so we should do it with google." Well, you can take a national utility and split it across geographic regions so local calls or electricity bills go into the pockets of the region you are in, and calls between two regions go into the pockets of both according to whatever long distance agreement is in place. That's at least workable. Or you break up an Oil Company that has 500 wells/concessions, into 5 groups of 100 wells/concessions. Or a railroad with a nationwide network, split up into 5 regional networks. That could work, too. That's what we did in the past to break up monopolies. Now how would that work with google search? Prevent people in region A from loading a website in region B? Is that what we want? crickets Sure there is low hanging fruit in terms of divesting -- e.g. no reason to keep a video monopoly like youtube with a search monopoly. I'm all for it. But now you just have two monopolies, and have not solved the problem of lack of competition in either video or search, which is ostensibly what you use to justfy these actions. In fact the consumer pains with long distance in the wake of the ATT breakup is the reason why the law has changed on anti-trust. Now you must show consumer harm to pass constitutional muster and your proposal has to show consumer benefit. A proposal to break off youtube from google is going to have a hard time passing this test. So yes, we, get it, we solved the problem of anti-trusts in the past, we don't like google, so We Must Do Something. Except those old anti-trust strategies just wont work against monopolies that have no geographic dimension. That no one is willing to touch that explains why we have a deluge of pleas, none of which contain a single workable proposal.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选