Does the open web require competitive markets?
-
Does the open web require competitive markets?
@evan I'm no. Human societies have worked fine without competitive markets before and I don't see why a society with an open web would require it.
-
@evan I'm no. Human societies have worked fine without competitive markets before and I don't see why a society with an open web would require it.
@malte so, you prefer what we have now? Monopolies with rent-seeking enshittification?
-
Does the open web require competitive markets?
Wow, what an interesting set of results. I think the answer is "yes".
-
Wow, what an interesting set of results. I think the answer is "yes".
I created this poll because I've been thinking a lot about Mozilla since the announcement of their new CEO. A lot of people here criticised the hire, since he said that Mozilla would make Firefox an "AI Browser". I don't mind that, although I don't think AI browsers are that useful, and I think running into the market where Atlas, Comet, Dia and others are already floundering sounds like a dumb bet.
-
I created this poll because I've been thinking a lot about Mozilla since the announcement of their new CEO. A lot of people here criticised the hire, since he said that Mozilla would make Firefox an "AI Browser". I don't mind that, although I don't think AI browsers are that useful, and I think running into the market where Atlas, Comet, Dia and others are already floundering sounds like a dumb bet.
What I'm more concerned about is "US vs. Google", the Google Search anti-trust case which showed that Google was using search engine placement deals with operating systems and browser vendors to unfairly inhibit competition with other search engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020)
-
What I'm more concerned about is "US vs. Google", the Google Search anti-trust case which showed that Google was using search engine placement deals with operating systems and browser vendors to unfairly inhibit competition with other search engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020)
Mozilla Corporation has subsisted almost entirely on this kind of deal with Google since the company was founded. When the judge in US vs. Google was considering remedies (like forbidding that kind of deal), Mozilla argued that this remedy would make it unable to compete in the *other* area that Google has a near monopoly, namely browsers:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/internet-policy/google-remedies-browsers/
-
Mozilla Corporation has subsisted almost entirely on this kind of deal with Google since the company was founded. When the judge in US vs. Google was considering remedies (like forbidding that kind of deal), Mozilla argued that this remedy would make it unable to compete in the *other* area that Google has a near monopoly, namely browsers:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/internet-policy/google-remedies-browsers/
Weirdly, the fact that Mozilla would be unable to find another buyer for its product (search engine placement), and the threat of another monopoly in browsers and browser engines, did not make Judge Mehta take *extra* remedies, like making Google sell Chrome and/or Android. Instead, the judge gave some pretty mild remedies, which probably won't do anything to make Google's 88% of the search engine market less of a problem for consumers or others in the ecosystem.
-
Weirdly, the fact that Mozilla would be unable to find another buyer for its product (search engine placement), and the threat of another monopoly in browsers and browser engines, did not make Judge Mehta take *extra* remedies, like making Google sell Chrome and/or Android. Instead, the judge gave some pretty mild remedies, which probably won't do anything to make Google's 88% of the search engine market less of a problem for consumers or others in the ecosystem.
Here's the main point, though: Mozilla is supposed to be somewhat purpose-driven. Its goals and mission are somewhat laid out in the Mozilla Manifesto. In particular, it supports an open and accessible Internet.
-
Here's the main point, though: Mozilla is supposed to be somewhat purpose-driven. Its goals and mission are somewhat laid out in the Mozilla Manifesto. In particular, it supports an open and accessible Internet.
I personally think that participating in an anti-competitive business practice that a court has found hurts American (and assumably also global) consumers and other businesses is not compatible with that purpose. I don't think that humans flourish in systems dominated by monopolies that use their power to extend those monopolies. Neither have most economists since about 1875.
-
I personally think that participating in an anti-competitive business practice that a court has found hurts American (and assumably also global) consumers and other businesses is not compatible with that purpose. I don't think that humans flourish in systems dominated by monopolies that use their power to extend those monopolies. Neither have most economists since about 1875.
If Mozilla is really purpose-driven, I think the number one goal of the organization should be getting out of the monopoly headlock it's in right now. It should find another buyer for its search engine placement service, and it should diversify its revenue to get the business on a firm footing that doesn't keep governments from enforcing competitive markets.
-
If Mozilla is really purpose-driven, I think the number one goal of the organization should be getting out of the monopoly headlock it's in right now. It should find another buyer for its search engine placement service, and it should diversify its revenue to get the business on a firm footing that doesn't keep governments from enforcing competitive markets.
I think "the open web" is by definition a multi-polar environment where many service providers, software creators, and platforms interact using interoperable standards. I think the "open" in "open web" requires multiple actors; a single company cannot be "open" with itself.
-
I think "the open web" is by definition a multi-polar environment where many service providers, software creators, and platforms interact using interoperable standards. I think the "open" in "open web" requires multiple actors; a single company cannot be "open" with itself.
I'm honestly surprised to see so many "No" answers to this question. From the anti-commercial replies, I think at least some of the No's come from a concentration on the word "markets" rather on the word "competitive". I think the economic definition of a "market" encompasses non-commercial services and products. But maybe I should have found some wording that doesn't make people hit the "I HATE COMPANIES" button so hard.
-
@malte so, you prefer what we have now? Monopolies with rent-seeking enshittification?
@evan No, I don't. Is that what you got from my answer?
-
I'm honestly surprised to see so many "No" answers to this question. From the anti-commercial replies, I think at least some of the No's come from a concentration on the word "markets" rather on the word "competitive". I think the economic definition of a "market" encompasses non-commercial services and products. But maybe I should have found some wording that doesn't make people hit the "I HATE COMPANIES" button so hard.
@evan I read the question as a speculative question (whether it was possible or not), the key word being "require". So for one, I didn't push that button. What the word market economy refers to in reality is ambiguous, given that the version that has come to dominate the world tends towards those monopolies you've contrasted it with in this thread. A truly non-monopoly based market economy mostly exists in the minds of economists and perhaps the Muslim Indian ocean in the Middle ages.
