The commercial claims it’s going to hit working families the hardest. In one version the voice over calls it “anti-innovation”, but the on screen text calls it “Anti-trust.” I don’t think those two things are really the same. I know all commercials are manipulative, but this one seems particularly pernicious.
Almost certainly the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. It’s got a lot of the big tech companies’ panties in a bunch.
From that Wikipedia reference:
Under the House legislation (H.R. 3816), AICO would forbid covered platforms from:
- “Self-preferencing” their own products at the expense of competitors
- Intentionally disadvantaging other firms’ products or services
- Using non-public data generated by a business user to advantage the covered platform’s own products
- Interfering with pricing decisions set by another business user
For example, prohibiting Apple’s using its control over its App Store to play favorites with respect to what can be sold there and under what conditions.
If it’s the same commercial I’m thinking of, it’s from the “American Edge” group (gift link), of which Meta/Facebook is one sponsor. Other large tech companies may be as well, but Meta/Facebook is most prominent.
I’m not seeing how this is anti-innovation, looks to me that it’s just an attempt to keep the big boys from unleveling the playing field.
Yeah, thus the scare quotes. I had the feeling it had more to do with the big guys than the “working people.” That’s why I asked if anyone could give me an idea of what it was really about.
Well if the big boys can’t push their monopoly and make more money than god, they might not be motivated to innovate a new way to extract even more money out of you.
Well, some ad writer you’d make! You think you can scare anyone with “Stop Congress from passing a bill that would interfere with our ability to tilt the playing field in our favor”?
So, what are you suggesting? That these ads are insincere, hyperbolic, misleading attempts to sway the public to oppose a measure that might actually be in the public interest? How likely is that?
It sounds to me like an example would be how Amazon places their own products on the screen, attempting to influence me to buy their brand, rather than a competitor.
But if so, will that prevent my supermarket from putting their house brand on a more convenient shelf?
Absolutely, yes.
No, it applies only to online marketplaces. Realistically, if you’re in, say Kroger, and the Kroger house brand is on a convenient shelf, it’s not that much trouble to look above and below for the competition.
However, anyone who knows what it’s like to shop on Amazon will know that trying to find what you’re looking for can be somewhat difficult, given that Amazon can choose exactly how to catalogue and present its stock.
And, unlike Kroger, Amazon has near-monopoly status in some markets.
Good points, thanks.
It’s Amazon’s company. It’s hard for me to get offended by this practice. Seems like they have a legitimate interest in selling the stuff they make more money off. However, I also don’t care if they have a legislative fix. (maybe since I don’t shop much at Amazon, I’m indifferent)
One part of me agrees vigorously.
The other part remembers that one of the functions of our government is to find ways for business to thrive without becoming too predatory. Anti-monopoly laws etc.
I pretty much expect Amazon (for example) will put its offerings at the top of the search list and judge accordingly. The real problem is that their search function generally sucks and gives too many results that I’m specifically trying to exclude (like offering lots of micro-USB results when I specifically put “USB-C” in the search string), but that’s a different issue.
Exactly, that holds for, price, color, size, anything your are supposedly filtering. It’s really pretty irritating.
The European Union is forcing Apple to make its mobile charger connections match everyone else’s. Apple hates this and wants to prevent this from happening in the United States.