Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 286 posts

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

#171

Post by LegitShady »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #121
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for clarifying the nuances at play. You've given me food for thought. I think it's easy to say the rules are vague, a statement I agree with. In my understanding of how the big social media players have finally applied their rules against Trump it was for inciting violence and spreading disinformation. I'd suggest the latter is pretty clear-cut, with the former being somewhat more challenging. Trump's tacti…

>Just the thought of an organisation not being allowed to apply its rules really does shock me.

It shouldn't. Think about this - hierarchically these organizations (companies) exist because of charters authorized by the government. The less your company impacts the greater society to the negative, the less likely you are to be regulated. As your company amasses power, influence, and data, your activities may be regulated by the government as they have a greater impact on how society works.

Your organization is only authorized to exist because of the government. Tomorrow they could remove your leadership, shut it down, or break it up - the only thing that is needed is a plausible justification and reason for social acceptance to overcome resistance.

This is all new territory for the human species, in many ways.

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

#172

Post by mrtksn »

dcposch wrote: post #160
mc32 wrote: post #123

I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an app…

That is certainly what they're worried about. Here's a less flattering angle on the same worry. Europe is caught pants-down. They are realizing how weak they are in tech and scrambling to fix it. The facts: - None of the 20 most valuable companies in the world are European. Most are US or China based, and many are tech. - A tiny number of successful startups are European. I think their biggest in the last 20 years is…

If EU doesn't have valuable companies and cannot produce valuable products how come that EU is not much different for living standarts than the US then? Is EU a petrostate? Where the money comes from if USA makes all the good stuff and EU none? From pumping out the Bulgarian crude or mining the Spanish rare earth metals?

The thing is, Europe missed out on the Software&Internet and the reality is, it is not the only tech or only high value product out there. However, software creates enormous monopolies, therefore when you do a top list USA has everything.

If you can look further than the toplists, Europe is doing strong on the long tail and that is how you got your 20T economy with no single unicorn in the charts.

Europe's biggest problem is its demographics - People are getting older and dying, not enough young people replace them. That's why it's percentage on the world economy is shrinking, it's not because Europeans can't code.

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

#173

Post by NorwegianDude »

tantalor wrote: post #141
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

They have that, it's the web browser.

No. iOS doesn't have a decent browser. iOS Safari is a seriously buggy and feature lacking browser.

Coincidence? Probably not.

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

#174

Post by SulfurHexaFluri »

tantalor wrote: post #141
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

They have that, it's the web browser.

If the web browser was actually a replacement for apps there would be no apps in the app store because it would be easier and far cheaper to run a website.

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

#175

Post by ryandrake »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #117
azernik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The selective enforcement - particularly when it's overt - really grinds my gears. When they are finally applied that doesn't make said application invalid or incorrect. I think that some cases whereby $importantperson isn't banned because they're important are valid. It helps to have a public and verifiable record of a public office holder making provably false claims, particularly when a warning is then slathered o…

Well, laws are selectively enforced, too. How many company-crippling GDPR fines have been collected so far?

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

corty wrote: post #169
zmmmmm wrote: post #126

It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up…

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rapidly delete content that might be against some law. Not after a court decision or at least an official order, no no, nothing so formal. A user complaint is sufficient to trigger the need to check within a few hours, have the platform decide to delete and repor…

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by winston_smith »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #168
mc32 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When advertising revenue is involved less revenue does not mean poor. Look at how much money google and facebook have to waste!

I think the point is that no company will ever willingly choose to make less money unless they're forced to.

Now that we see what ad based, centralized social media / surveillance companies lead to, more and more people have reasons to take their business elsewhere.

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

#178

Post by undersuit »

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…

An option is the government makes their own social network to compete with the private networks. Then the government can make their own rules.

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

#179

Post by stale2002 »

Talanes wrote: post #161
stale2002 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. No, that is not true for all private services. For example, common carriers have strong restrictions on their ability to refuse service to others. Common carrier laws aren't particularly controversial. These existing common carrier laws could be expanded to apply to other things.

Common carriers are a tiny minority of businesses. Plenty of other exception exist too, but they are exceptions. Because the default is that businesses do reserve the right to refuse service.

They are exceptions yes. And people are advocating for additional exceptions to be made and they are giving justification for it.

So you cant just straight up dismiss the idea that we should consider requiring a few more businesses to fall under our existing and uncontroversial laws common carrier laws.

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

#180

Post by Karunamon »

jariel wrote: post #86
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,…

The power imbalance means companies can use all sorts of crazy leverage to do all sorts of things that wouldn't really be fair in a free market, and certainly not a free market of ideas etc.. I'll bet $100 that companies would love to wash their hands of a lot of this stuff, and just be able to 'comply' with some regulatory things so they can't be blamed or get into trouble one way or another.

I'd take that bet. Leaked conversations from Twitter and Google insiders show that the platform owners are well aware of the power their platforms give them. That's a power that can't be accurately measured in dollars, and speaking purely selfishly on their behalf, one that they'd be fools to give up.
Post reply on HN