On the day before Double Eleven, the State Administration for Market Regulation released the "Anti Monopoly Guidelines (Draft for Soliciting Opinions) in the Field of Platform Economy", which suddenly became jittery in the circle, although it was only a "draft for soliciting opinions". Monopoly and innovation are a contradiction in themselves. Although the internet industry is not very long, the pace of development in this industry is particularly fast, with fast innovation and rapid development, as well as fast monopoly. Users have had enough of the pain of monopoly, with software installation being a 'whole family bucket', feature bundling and implantation, and advertising big data being 'cooked up', which is difficult to record. Objectively speaking, there are a large number of industry leaders with monopolistic positions in the field of the digital economy, and the network has overcome time and space barriers, providing fertile soil for commercial monopoly. Monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is to use monopoly to crack down on competitors and exclude peers, as well as to use the monopoly market position to harm consumer interests. For example, a certain business travel website dynamically adjusts service prices for specific users. When customers book a room or take a taxi, the prices vary from person to person, commonly known as "big data killing". For example, in promotional activities such as the Double Eleven, if merchants are instructed to "choose between two platforms", participating in one party's promotional activities will prevent them from participating in activities on other platforms. There are often similar complaints on the internet, but the market position brought about by monopolies is difficult to shake. Users have no choice but to complain, and platforms have not made substantial improvements except for painless "apologies" and "rectifications". Often, they hide "routines" deeper, and under the drive of interests, various unfair profit seeking methods are increasing day by day. This time, as the main body of market regulation, the State Administration for Market Regulation has released only a "draft for soliciting opinions", but a "monopoly war" against internet giants has already begun. Let me light up three points: Left point: Internet antitrust is beneficial for activating industry innovation The suppression of monopoly on innovation is obvious. In the market environment of unfair competition, competitors are difficult to break through. In recent years, internet innovation has entered a low tide, and a large number of startups have gone bankrupt. This is largely due to monopolies. For many years, there has been a saying in the entrepreneurial community that 'standing in line'. If a startup obtains cooperation or even investment from a giant, its future development is like being insured, which is very unfair to other competitors. Looking at the recent startups that have emerged, most of them have backing from giants, making it difficult for companies without them to stand out. This is not only the consensus of the entrepreneurial community, but also the consensus of investment institutions. As long as they can catch the fast train of giants, companies will not worry about the future. This phenomenon has also led to the "gang culture" in the internet industry, forming a "business gang" around several major giants, which is becoming increasingly serious. This type of 'commercial gang' poses a huge threat to the healthy development of the market and the rights and interests of users. Right point: Users are the biggest beneficiaries In the "Anti Monopoly Guidelines" issued this time, it is particularly necessary and timely to address behaviors such as "big data killing". For many years, in the internet dominated by giants, users seem to have become numb. The information asymmetry in the front and back ends of the internet has made the platform's "tricks" increasingly sharp. With the help of big data and artificial intelligence, the platform's "cutting leeks" has become more and more leisurely. Individual users are powerless to resist the massive system platform. At this time, the government takes the initiative to address monopolistic phenomena, which is a form of protection for users. Next point: High tech 'elites' need to hold onto the bottom line The promotion of social progress by technology often requires large-scale commercialization, which is a historical law. But in the internet industry, the ethical issues of commercialization of this technology are increasingly attracting attention. Both the United States and the European Union have questioned industry giants and even issued fines due to the monopoly issue of the Internet. As industry practitioners, while pursuing commercial maximization, we need to reflect on the issue of ethical bottom lines. Especially for technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence, the characteristic of these technologies is the high opacity of the front and back ends, which brings additional "freedom of behavior" and regulatory barriers to platform managers. Due to innovative technology and outdated legislation on big data and artificial intelligence, industry self-discipline has become particularly important. To put it bluntly, outside of regulation, high-tech "elites" need to ask themselves, speak their conscience, and hold some bottom lines in product development and operation. Technology is used to promote social progress, and commercial profits can only be made at a moderate pace. At the same time, high-tech legislation needs to be pushed forward as soon as possible, as human nature is greedy and conscience cannot be trusted in the face of excessive profits. |
MIP|Mobile version|A small dark room| |Site Map |customer serviceQQ：2381682638
Copyright © 2006-2024 Huiyi Interaction https://www.forexbbs.net copyright All Rights Reserved.
