2021年5月25日 星期二

On Tech: The big deal in Amazon’s antitrust case

The claim that Amazon is crushing competition is both novel and railroad baron-style old-school.

The big deal in Amazon's antitrust case

Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post, via Getty Images

Hoo boy, this is a moment. A government authority in the United States has sued Amazon over claims that the company is breaking the law by unfairly crushing competition.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by the attorney general for the District of Columbia, joins the recent government antitrust cases against Google and Facebook. These lawsuits will take forever, and legal experts have said that the companies likely have the upper hand in court.

The D.C. attorney general, Karl Racine, however, is making a legal argument against Amazon that is both old-school and novel, and it might become a blueprint for crimping Big Tech power.

It's a longstanding claim by some of the independent merchants who sell on Amazon's digital mall that the company punishes them if they list their products for less on their own websites or other shopping sites like Walmart.com. Those sellers are effectively saying that Amazon dictates what happens on shopping sites all over the internet, and in doing so makes products more expensive for all of us.

Racine has made this claim a centerpiece of his lawsuit. Amazon has said before that merchants have absolute authority to set prices for the products they sell on its site, but that ignores that the company has subtle levers to make merchants' products all but invisible to shoppers. If a merchant lists a product for less on another site, Amazon can respond by making it more cumbersome for a shopper to buy the item.

ADVERTISEMENT

Amazon, in a statement to my colleagues, said that merchants have the freedom to list and price their products however they wish, but that Amazon can chose "not to highlight" products that are not competitively priced.

Why is the attorney general's claim a big deal?

Legal experts have said that it's tricky to sue technology giants for breaking antitrust laws. That's partly because of the ways U.S. competition laws have been written, interpreted and enforced over the decades. But the lawsuit against Amazon bypasses this by saying that the tech giant hurts the public the same way that 19th-century railroads and steel giants did — by strong-arming competition and raising prices at will.

Last year, the legal scholar and Big Tech critic Tim Wu told me that he believed that those price claims were the strongest potential antitrust case against Amazon on legal grounds. (He has since been picked to advise the White House on corporate competition issues.)

ADVERTISEMENT

I don't know if any of these lawsuits against Big Tech will succeed at chipping away at the companies' tremendous influence. And I can't definitively say whether we're better or worse off by having a handful of powerful technology companies that make products used and often loved by billions of people.

It has been remarkable, though, to see the evolution of thinking among some of the public and politicians, from justified awe of these companies and what they make to questioning the downsides of technologies and the at-times brazen companies behind them.

It's a sometimes unfair and noisy mess. But remember why we got to this point: Technology giants are among the most powerful forces in our world, and the price of power is scrutiny.

How to fight back against bogus online information: The comedian Sarah Silverman and three of my colleagues are hosting a virtual event Wednesday about disinformation and how to combat it. Sign up here for the online event at 7 p.m. Eastern. It's open only to New York Times subscribers.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Florida passed a law that will fine social media companies for permanently barring political candidates' accounts. The measure is most likely unconstitutional and unenforceable, Democrats, libertarian groups and tech companies told my colleague David McCabe, but it's a response to Facebook's and Twitter's suspension of former President Donald Trump.
  • Posting is life. My colleague Taylor Lorenz explains how social media invitations to a teenager's birthday party spread on TikTok and drew thousands of people and a police crackdown. The event got big partly because it was an opportunity for attendees to post compelling material online. SIGH.
  • POTUS loves Apple News? I don't like it when computers and smartphones come with the device makers' apps already installed, but it's effective — even with the president of the United States. The Washington Post reported that during the 2020 campaign Joe Biden shared with aides human interest stories from Apple News, which came on his iPhone and he apparently hadn't deleted.

Hugs to this

The Linda Lindas are glorious. Here is the talented punk band of four girls between the ages of 10 and 16 — Bela, Eloise, Mila and Lucia — playing "Racist, Sexist Boy" at a Los Angeles public library. The Guardian interviewed them about their sudden internet fame.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Remembrance of futures past

Why does technology so often disappoint?
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Last week I wrote about cryptocurrency, which is sort of becoming the monetary equivalent of the old joke about Brazil: "It's the country of the future, and always will be." The article drew a predictable wave of outrage from crypto fanatics — and there are no fanatics like crypto fanatics. What probably offended them most was my observation that this "revolutionary" technology is actually getting kind of old — Bitcoin was invented in 2009 — and has yet to find significant legitimate uses.

Cryptocurrency isn't the only technology to disappoint. Self-driving cars were supposed to be ruling the road by now. And basically nothing in the 1968 movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" has happened yet; neither the space hotel nor the homicidal computer. (OK, we do have video calls.)

Not everything has fallen short. Solar and wind power have made incredible progress. And I assume I'm not the only person who, forced into trying new things during quarantine, discovered that you can produce some pretty amazing meals in an electronic pressure cooker.

Still, the data bear out the general sense that the real-world utility of new technology has fallen far short of the hype. Labor productivity — real output per person hour — has risen only about half as fast since 2007 as it did in the generation after World War II. Why measure from 2007? Well, it was the eve of the financial crisis; but it also happens to be the year Apple introduced the original iPhone. So much technoglitz; so little G.D.P. Why?

ADVERTISEMENT

A new paper by Erik Brynjolfsson, Seth Benzell and Daniel Rock tries to answer that question; to their credit, given that Brynjolfsson in particular has built a career emphasizing the revolutionary changes technology is bringing, one of their options is that when all is said and done, new technologies, while eye-catching, aren't all that. Their favored explanation, however, boils down to: just you wait. The idea is that it takes a while for businesses to figure out how to make the best use of radical new technologies, and that you shouldn't expect big things until they do.

I like this argument, and I would find it persuasive … if I hadn't heard it all before.

You see, this isn't the first time information technology has disappointed. During the 70s and 80s computers proliferated with astonishing speed; you young whippersnappers have no idea how big a deal it was to have your own screen and keyboard sitting on your desk. Yet the economy remained mired in a long stretch of productivity stagnation. As the great M.I.T. economist Robert Solow remarked, "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."

Enter the economic historian Paul David, with a fascinating 1990 paper titled "The Dynamo and the Computer." David showed that it took decades before the advantages of electrification really showed up in economic growth, because it took time before, to take one example, manufacturers realized that replacing overhead shafts and pullies with electric motors meant that factories could be sprawling structures with wide aisles, not cramped multistory buildings with a steam engine in the basement.

ADVERTISEMENT

David's point was that we could expect something similar with computers: eventually businesses would learn what to do with them, and productivity would surge. Sure enough, around 1995 U.S. productivity growth really did take off, beginning a rocket-like ascent.

Which lasted for around a decade, then stalled out.

Maybe this time is different. But so far the fact is that in an era when we talk constantly about technology and glamorize techies, the actual economic payoffs have been largely — not universally, but largely — disappointing. And because we've been through this kind of disappointment before, it's hard to avoid feeling a bit cynical.

Quick Hits

The technologies that seemed "highly likely" in the 60s; most didn't make it.

Whatever happened to supersonic travel?

Weren't we supposed to have virtual reality by now?

Unless Pelotons count.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

Thinking about the futureYouTube

OK, what about my technology?

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018