[ManBlanket]

The way this article is written makes it seem the focus of the bill is preventing the promotion of Amazon Basics. Personally it strikes me as a bit of a straw-man. The article seems acutely focused on this small aspect of the larger policy. Like the author is hoping the reader will throw the baby out with the bath water, in an evasive way. (Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post)

Personally I am finding it increasingly difficult to read the Post without noticing bias. I would encourage comparing this article to Klobuchar's own description of the bill before coming to your own conclusion. https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/2/sen...

It would seem the portion of the bill in question regards, "exclusionary conduct". Like if Amazon refused to list retailers that compete with its own Amazon Basics brand, akin to a grocery store refusing to sell Rice Crispies because it competes with their own Crisp Ricies. Not necessarily precluding them from offering the products.

Even then that's only a small bullet point in a much larger bill. Most of the intent seems to be focused on increasing the capacity and resources for pursuing cases pertaining to anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions by these companies. The potential for exclusionary conduct becomes particularly concerning given the current trend of a few corporations gobbling up everything in their path that even remotely competes with their products.

Thing is it doesn't matter if a product is a good idea which solves a niche problem if it's involved with these massive companies. If that product doesn't make a billion dollars then it finds itself in the Google Graveyard. Personally I don't want to see new and innovative things have a bad deal forced upon them, only to merge into a morass of vanilla ice cream because they didn't make ALL the money.

[cjsplat]

The Klobuchar PR comment you link dated Feb 4, 2021 references S.225, introduced in February.

This article seems to be about a new bill that Klobuchar and Grassley will introduce "next week".

In yesterday's WaPo article, Klobuchar seems to imply that the new bill will motivated similarly to HR3816, which is very different than S.225.

Until the new bill is published it is difficult to have a solid analysis. It is possible that the lobbyists quoted by WaPO actually have seen draft versions given how Washington actually works.

So ... expect this item to appear on HN again next week when outsiders can have a more informed opinion.

[Wowfunhappy]

> Like the author is hoping the reader will throw the baby out with the bath water, in an evasive way. (Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post)

While I think it's correct to be skeptical of Washington Post stories which report on Amazon, I can't imagine Amazon would be happy with some of the characterizations used in this article.

> like Amazon sucking up data from sellers on its platform to copy the products in-house.

[wincy]

So a place like Aldi will have to stock things other than its store brands? How do you pick which brands need be included? Judging from a place like Sprouts or Whole Foods there’s about 50 varieties of rice crispies.

[justinlink]

Yeah, and will the Apple store have to carry Android phones?

[chmsky00]

Politics does not exist to resolve social problems. It exists to resolve headlines.

So, yeah, it is a straw man. It’s framed as a general problem of society, but it’s a feel good solution that again waves off any conversation about raising taxes in response to their behavior.

Senators are tackling this very serious problem, to be immediately gamed given billionaires financial resources.

It’s not a tax on money, it’s a tax on agency. Fiat and macro economics is a euphemism for “what are people doing and how do we make them do this instead?”

It’s not about perfect mind control, but inflating their value to deflate our agency (or buying power, whatever trips your trigger).

We get debate protecting one concept or principle or another, but think a bit more literally and it starts to take on a whole new perspective.