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

271–280 of 286 posts

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

#271

Post by jariel »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #258
jariel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument doesn't work very well because even in Parliamentary systems there is good clarity as to what people are voting for. Your arguments is resting on technicalities, but not on the realities of awareness and participation of voters. Boris Johnson had a questionable first phase as PM due to his inherited position, a lack of confidence - so - there was an election. Not only did everyone in the UK know who the…

Exactly, von der Leyen could never have won a fair election, because she was involved in a scandal around illegal contracts for consultants - in any proper election, someone with a recent scandal like, particularly revolving around spending public money I'm a wrong way, would be toxic and no party would even run them as their candidate.

The double paradox is, despite my lack of faith in her democratic credentials, and that I often disagree with her ... for the most part I actually like her. I think she's actually well suited to the job - her handling of Brexit was right on the line I think.

That may have a lot however to do with the fact that she probably takes a note of notes from Merkel ... which was maybe the point of her appointment in the first place.

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

#272

Post by SllX »

analog31 wrote: post #270
SllX wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "vulnerable to losing", as in it would hurt their economies and put people out of work or hurt livelihoods because the EU in their infinite wisdom decided to excise one or more of them from the continent, it's pretty much name a non-European tech company. Even Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle. Service contracts have to be fulfilled, and making a living off of social media like Instagram, YouTube and Twitch isn't just an A…

That's what I'm trying to wrap my head around. Facebook and Google have value because they have gained monopoly power in markets that they created themselves. The need for unlimited personal data and targeted advertising didn't even exist until they came along. Now they have become so integral to everyday life, that access to them is being framed as an entitlement. How do you manage a utility that tends towards monop…

First movers tend to have an advantage. That’s rarely permanent so getting concerned and trying to preemptively regulate is just bound to create more problems than it solves.

If Facebook/Google went away from Europe tomorrow, Europe would adapt around their absence just as they adapted to their presence, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t hurt and hurt actual people. You don’t need state monopolies, you just need to let hungry entrepreneurs continue to look for opportunities just as Facebook and Google did at one point in their existence and exploit those opportunities.

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

#273

Post by analog31 »

SllX wrote: post #272
analog31 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I'm trying to wrap my head around. Facebook and Google have value because they have gained monopoly power in markets that they created themselves. The need for unlimited personal data and targeted advertising didn't even exist until they came along. Now they have become so integral to everyday life, that access to them is being framed as an entitlement. How do you manage a utility that tends towards monop…

First movers tend to have an advantage. That’s rarely permanent so getting concerned and trying to preemptively regulate is just bound to create more problems than it solves. If Facebook/Google went away from Europe tomorrow, Europe would adapt around their absence just as they adapted to their presence, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t hurt and hurt actual people. You don’t need state monopolies, you just need to l…

Indeed, and I think that a basic safety net can smooth out the roughest of rough edges. There's no reason why a person needs to starve if their platform vanishes.

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

#274

Post by julianmarq »

I'm not really surprised that governments (or similar, such as the EU) are starting to become suspicious of the issue that private companies—who primarily profit off their users' data—have somehow anointed themselves as arbiters of speech.

It should have happened sooner, really. Hopefully this leads into ways to foster innovation (such as with decentralized networks) and competition, to break these giants' monopolies on the flow of information.

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

#275

Post by SllX »

analog31 wrote: post #273
SllX wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First movers tend to have an advantage. That’s rarely permanent so getting concerned and trying to preemptively regulate is just bound to create more problems than it solves. If Facebook/Google went away from Europe tomorrow, Europe would adapt around their absence just as they adapted to their presence, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t hurt and hurt actual people. You don’t need state monopolies, you just need to l…

Indeed, and I think that a basic safety net can smooth out the roughest of rough edges. There's no reason why a person needs to starve if their platform vanishes.

To be fair, it’s not likely their platform will vanish overnight as long as Google and Facebook are making money in Europe unless the EU really does drive them out. Market shifts can be fast but there’s at least usually some leading indicators when a small business might no longer be viable.

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

#276

Post by ric2b »

babesh wrote: post #251
dragonwriter wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> monopoly on the limiting of free speech No private party actually has such a monopoly, so it's not a real current issue.

They are if they act in concert. That is what is really scary.

You'd need quite a long list of companies to work together at the social network level for that to be true.

If you go lower in the stack, like ISP's it becomes much easier.

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

#277

Post by mistermann »

perl4ever wrote: post #199
mistermann wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left likes to listen - an admirable trait, but listening and collaborating too much dilutes outcomes. Who on the left (or any pole/dimension) has actually sat down and made a serious effort to understand in high detail the various grievances and world views of the type of people who stormed the Capitol, or conspiracy theorists? I'm not asserting that no one has done it, but I have never encountered anyone who h…

I think an awful lot of Americans have family members on "the other side" even if they mostly associate with their own kind otherwise. So people know something first hand, completely apart from "journalism and social media". At this point, the people I know who are on the right seem to be basically "waiting for the rapture", i.e. when the global conspiracy of literally everyone in the world against Trump will be reve…

I too know a few of the stereotypical "beyond delusional" types on the right, they do exist. But then I also know several onm the left whose take on things is "rather inconsistent" with a serious reading of the primary sources, and some reasonable, unemotional compilation. I imagine they are less crazy, and they are certainly better spoken (better vocabularies, etc), but I'd be interested to see an omniscient being's tally of the true distributed craziness out there.

Also, one shouldn't overlook things like confirmation bias - for every highly visible crazy you or I see, on either side, how many non-vocal people with reasonable ideas are there that the mind doesn't see, and therefore perceives to not exist (depending on the mode of thinking?

And then for those that do appear batshit insane - are they really as deluded as their words suggest? Your experiences seem to suggest so, but my question is: how do we go from the brutal discourse we've got going on now, to somewhere more reasonable? What actions do we have to take as a society, and as individuals (whether we "like to" or "should have to", or not), and what changes do we need to our social media platforms and media?

> But I just can't envision what a "serious effort" to break through would even look like.

I think both the way we report the news, and the way we discuss it, need a serious overhaul. The current approach of "news event/article --> social media argument --> go to bed -- > wake up --> (slightly updated) news event/article --> social media argument" is just an endless loop of outrage. I believe if we instead had some sort of a persistent model of each issue, showing all of the important attributes (with citations) and various and conflicting perspectives that we could refer to during debate rather than the latest news article, I think the conversation would be very different.

Compare how we discuss and analyze the complex matters and news of the world (which typically involve systems of some kind), versus how we do the same for complex systems at work - do the two approaches resemble each other?

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

#278

Post by turbinerneiter »

jariel wrote: post #271
turbinerneiter wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, von der Leyen could never have won a fair election, because she was involved in a scandal around illegal contracts for consultants - in any proper election, someone with a recent scandal like, particularly revolving around spending public money I'm a wrong way, would be toxic and no party would even run them as their candidate.

The double paradox is, despite my lack of faith in her democratic credentials, and that I often disagree with her ... for the most part I actually like her. I think she's actually well suited to the job - her handling of Brexit was right on the line I think. That may have a lot however to do with the fact that she probably takes a note of notes from Merkel ... which was maybe the point of her appointment in the first…

The handling of Brexit was another affront to the EU parliament: they negotiated so long, that the parliament couldn't vote on it. It has now been ratified by the member states, and the parliament only gets to vote after the fact.

Did you now, that the MEPs didn't get to read the contracts for the vaccines the EU bought?

Taking notes from Merkel btw. is not something I see as a good thing. Her flip-flop on nuclear power, the messed up renewable energy transition, the complete and utter failure in digitalization all around, especially schools, cum-cum and cum-ex, her running every single election on asymmetric demobilisation ... I'm not a fan.

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

#279

Post by anoncake »

ric2b wrote: post #276
babesh wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are if they act in concert. That is what is really scary.

You'd need quite a long list of companies to work together at the social network level for that to be true. If you go lower in the stack, like ISP's it becomes much easier.

What's the point of arguing if companies are able to limit free speech in theory when they just did so in practice?

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

#280

Post by anoncake »

option_greek wrote: post #226
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, let’s just let open Holocaust-denial or Hitler-worshipping or white supremacy all be absolutely fine. Or what about doxxing or a focused effort to destroy a business online through lies and slander, on a social network that doesn’t have any rules? Is that allowed? It’s my free speech to tell lies of course. Free speech without restrictions is a silly liberal dream that never works. It’s like capitalism in tha…

You do realise that Hitler was the government when all the atrocities were committed? The road to hell is paved with best intentions (of the supporters of these governments)

It's not about what happens when Hitler 2 is in power, but to prevent that from happening.
Post reply on HN