undefined | Better HN

0 pointsben_w2y ago0 comments

> I suspect it would still be pretty decent.

A fun thought experiment, but I suspect they'd be bankrupt from the meritless lawsuits that come from being big, or in prison for not being able to follow laws they had to be big to lobby against.

And even if not, the combined efforts of the scammers would probably evolve faster than two people could react.

0 comments

ireadmevs2y ago

Since we are in fun thought experiment mode, here’s another one I just had: what if we somehow could prevent companies from getting too big? Would we manage to keep a line where they all stay more or less in “pretty decent” territory?

kuchenbecker2y ago

By what metric, and how would it be different than antitrust enforcement?

E.g. a product that is clearly better can legally capture 100% market share. Only leveraging that market power is illegal.

I genuinely think a rule along the lines of "anything with 30%+ market share is scrutinized as having monopolistic network effect advantage" would have net positive outcomes on competition.

Aeolun2y ago

> how would it be different than antitrust enforcement?

I think the benefit of such an imaginary rule is that in your imagination it’d actually be enforced.

8n4vidtmkvmk2y ago

The metric of user share. Wouldn't enter antitrust territory if you somehow avoid acquiring more users. Limiting # of active accounts would be one way to enforce.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse