EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone • Hacker News Board

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#101

Post by SulfurHexaFluri » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #95

SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is these companies are too big and powerful now. If a small business refuses someone its no big deal, go to another business. But when these titans join together to make an action that affects you and there are no alternatives left, thats a different case. If both Apple and Google ban your app when the app is legal and useful, is it good for society that there is no way around this?

"Legal and useful" are but two criteria Apple uses to approve or refuse apps. They also care about safety, performance, and design. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

They also care about squashing competition which prevents many apps like real web browsers, game streaming and alternative stores which can not pay the 30% fee.

IMO its fair for the app store to remove whatever it wants but there needs to be an escape hatch where apps blocked by apple can be manually installed. Since the API apps have access to is secure, this should not be a significant issue.

Apps like Parlor may be full of ToS violating content but users should still be able to sideload the app and the government should be the one to shut them down if the content is illegal.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#102

Post by LocalH » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

user982 wrote: post #97

bjeds wrote: post #19

I'm impressed that the EU is taking action in this case and I hope they also look into the shutdown of Parler under antitrust legislation. Parler was the number one downloaded social media app in the app store after all. According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz, who each had followers in the millions. Of course Parler had a problem with some - maybe even many - v…

> According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz...fairly normal republicans of the kind that are still not banned on Twitter and Facebook (like the two persons I mentioned). The two persons you mentioned as "fairly normal republicans" had their contact information carried by an armed terrorist who invaded the Capitol on the hunt for "bad guys": https://twitter.com/joh…

That was a disingenuous quote, you merged parts of two different sentences as if they were one.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#103

Post by readflaggedcomm » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #99

proactivesvcs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to, and the implication that they should be allowed to break the rules they agreed to simply because they're important. An organisation must now allow people to flaunt their rules, helpless to remove them despite the abuse that they perpetrate?

I don't think you can square that circle. Let's say it's 2024, and the dominant social media platform is called Witted[1]. They have their terms of service, but the terms of service have some ambiguity. In fact, Witted deliberately left some ambiguity, for two reasons. First, you can't absolutely codify human interactions - human communication is too complex. Second, Witted wanted the ambiguity, because it gave Witte…

Democratize it: put government in charge of that company. (And also campaign finance.)

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#104

Post by Talanes » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

saladgnu054 wrote: post #98

proactivesvcs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to, and the implication that they should be allowed to break the rules they agreed to simply because they're important. An organisation must now allow people to flaunt their rules, helpless to remove them despite the abuse that they perpetrate?

Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service, an online platform also not be allowed to refuse service? Is someone misbehaving, great, inform the actual authorities of their jurisdiction. Actual governments, with the people's mandate, are the only ones with authority to set the laws. Not tech monopolies.

>Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service

A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. You're not allowed to walk in to Costco without a Costco card. Plenty of restaurants and clubs have a dress code. Most places have "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" rules.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#105

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #53

boplicity wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've run a niche "social media" site for 12 years. There is no tightrope. The problem is that these large platforms want the benefits of scale, without being responsible for dealing with the problems of scale. It is imminently possible to build a thriving social media site that enforces standards of behavior. HN is a good example. However, it is work to actually enforce those standards. It takes leadership. Facebook,…

What would happen if Trump was on your site and constantly violated your standards of behaviour?

Can't speak for the grandparent, but here he'd be warned several times, then banned.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#106

Post by user982 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

LocalH wrote: post #102

user982 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz...fairly normal republicans of the kind that are still not banned on Twitter and Facebook (like the two persons I mentioned). The two persons you mentioned as "fairly normal republicans" had their contact information carried by an armed terrorist who invaded the Capitol on the hunt for "bad guys": https://twitter.com/joh…

That was a disingenuous quote, you merged parts of two different sentences as if they were one.

I used an ellipsis for brevity. Explain how that changed the meaning of the quotation into disingenuousness?

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#107

Post by azernik » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:45 PM UTC

proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly,…

Because terms of service are vague and, more importantly, selectively enforced.

Selective enforcement of private contracts is totally legal, and the EU('s executive branch) is uncomfortable with the public policy implications of that when it comes to social media and would like new laws passed to add extra regulation on uniformity and specificity of moderation policies.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#108

Post by Talanes » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:45 PM UTC

LocalH wrote: post #102

user982 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz...fairly normal republicans of the kind that are still not banned on Twitter and Facebook (like the two persons I mentioned). The two persons you mentioned as "fairly normal republicans" had their contact information carried by an armed terrorist who invaded the Capitol on the hunt for "bad guys": https://twitter.com/joh…

That was a disingenuous quote, you merged parts of two different sentences as if they were one.

No it's not. The ellipses in the middle are sufficient to denote that there is a trimmed portion of the quote, especially as this is a threaded post and you only need to scroll slightly up to see the unmodified original.

There's no misapplied meaning created from the cut either, as the final parenthetical unambiguously clarifies that the subjects of the former sentence were part of the group of subjects in the latter sentence.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#109

Post by azernik » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:46 PM UTC

tsherr wrote: post #28

orange_tee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that Facebook and Twitter only acted after the fact. For them, Trump was too big to censor too. They only took action days before he is out of office when it was guaranteed he would leave.

FB and Twitter didn't deplatform Trump because he was a nasty bastard who was inciting revolt. They did it because the Democrats won and they want to suck up.

They didn't deplatform him until he crossed a line in terms of violence; they didn't deplatform him right after the presidential or even the Georgia races were called.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#110

Post by ozim » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:46 PM UTC

zajio1am wrote: post #69

syntaxing wrote: post #60

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority v…

> Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. Leaving B2B aside, for B2C it is basic consumer protection laws common in EU. If a service is offered to a general public, then provider may not arbitrarily exclude someone from using it. If a provider excludes someone for violating ToS, then the excluded one may dispute that at appropriate a…

Well do we have anyone here with locked google account who went that route?