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

U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 452 posts

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#301

Post by heavyset_go »

zepto wrote: post #196
traib wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WebKit on iOS has special sandbox privileges not available to other user frameworks. Okay so WebKit cannot be used as is, but then why forbid other alternatives [1]? Seems like a Catch-22. > It seems like an engineering challenge to expose these features to arbitrary 3rd party frameworks in a way that doesn’t allow these features to be abused. How does literally every single other platform manage this? AFAIK none o…

> How does literally every single other platform manage this? AFAIK none of Android, Windows, the many Unix-like OSs, even Apple's MacOs have such restrictions on browser apps. They don’t. All of those platforms are less secure than iOS.

And yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/

[2] http://zerodium.com/program.html

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#302

Post by heavyset_go »

gorbypark wrote: post #272
fingerlocks wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a technical detail most people don’t care about. You still get all the competing browsers with all their specific features on iOS, regardless of the rendering engine.

All non-Safari browsers on iOS use the Safari engine underneath, which doesn't currently support WebRTC. It's a pretty huge blocker for a lot of sites (video conferencing, etc) to have to throw up a "Please use Safari" banner for iOS users using anything other than Safari.

It also doesn't support Web APIs that Chrome and Firefox have supported for 8+ years now.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#303

Post by [deleted] »

kortilla wrote: post #288
capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#304

Post by bcrosby95 »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #186
granshaw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole notion of starting a company, possibly ignoring profits, with a buyout as the endgame is frankly ridiculous, and emblematic of the excesses and war chests that these big corps yield. What happened to building a profitable company, or at least one close enough to ipo, and “making it” that way?

There are people leading those companies, but they're so few and far between that you can probably list them off the top of your head in the tech space. When a successful company like GitHub can't pass up double-digit billions, then, really, what hope is there? Companies like Microsoft have $130B of cash on hand, and (almost) everyone has a price. They can go buy several more of those companies, and that's why we hea…

> but they're so few and far between that you can probably list them off the top of your head in the tech space.

I disagree. You can't name them because they aren't worth billions of dollars and they don't make any headlines. They're usually called "lifestyle" businesses on here, and while sometimes this site discusses them most discussions are about building the next Google.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#305

Post by alexarnesen »

Below is the CV of most of the authors / contributors.

I could only find one person with a technical background that is at least computing-adjacent.

(I didn't produce this research, I commissioned it, so there may be factual errors.)

Link to full research: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kbpQgU5YQSOmyyhOUCkmjCrrj4C...

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROFILES

Technical staff: Anna Lenhart

Anna Lenhart: Technologist - B.S. Civil Engineering and Engineering Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2011) - M.P.P., Science & Technology Policy (Artificial Intelligence), University of Michigan (2018)

Non-technical staff: everyone else

Slade Bond: Chief Counsel - B.A. History, Mary Washington College (2008) - J.D., University of Kansas School of Law (2011) - LL.M., Intellectual Property and Information Privacy, The George Washington University Law School (2012)

Lina Khan: Counsel - B.A. Political Theory, Williams College - J.D., Yale Law School

Phillip Berenbroick: Counsel - B.A. Political Science, Tufts University (2004) - Law, University of Virginia School of Law (2008) - JD, Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

Amanda Lewis: Counsel on Detail, Federal Trade Commission - B.A. Political Science; Latin American Studies, New York University - J.D. Law, Columbia Law School

Joseph Ehrenkrantz: Special Assistant - B.A. English and Government & Politics, University of Maryland (2014) - J.D. Law, Georgetown University Law Center (2020)

Catherine Larsen: Special Assistant - B.A. Political Science and Government, English, University of Nebraska (2014) - J.D. Law, New York University School of Law (2020)

Joseph Van Wye: Professional Staff Member - B.A. Political Science and Government, Brown University (2015)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PROFILES

Non-technical staff: everyone

Perry Apelbaum: Staff Director and Chief Counsel - Bachelor General Studies, University of Michigan (1981) - J.D. Harvard University, 1984

Aaron Hiller: Deputy Chief Counsel - BS Biology & BA Philosophy, University of North Carolina (2003) - J.D., MPP, Georgetown University Law Center (2007)

Shadawn Reddick-Smith: Communications Director - B.S. Communications and Public Relations, Towson University

Jessica Presley: Director of Digital Strategy - Penn State University

Madeline Strasser: Chief Clerk - B.A. International Politics, National Security Policy Studies, Penn State University (2017)

Amy Rutkin: Chief of Staff

John Williams: Parliamentarian - B.A. University of Virginia (1988) - Ph.D. Medieval History, The University of Chicago (1995) - J.D. Georgetown University Law Center (2001)

Daniel Schwarz: Director of Strategic Communications - B.A. Political Science and Jewish Studies, Indiana University (2008) - MSc Politics and Communication, London School of Economics and Political Science (2011)

Moh Sharma: Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor - B.A. and M.A. Economics, University of Connecticut - M.S. Global Affairs, New York University - J.D., City University of New York School of Law

John Doty: Senior Advisor - B.A. History, Middlebury College

David Greengrass: Senior Counsel - BA Government, Wesleyan University (1998) - JD, Law, American University Washington College of Law

Arya Hariharan: Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel - BA Law and Society, International Studies, American University (2007) - JD, The College of William and Mary – Marshall Wythe Law School (2012)

Matthew Robinson: Counsel - B.A. Yale University (2003) - JD New York University School of Law (2012)

Kayla Hamedi: Deputy Press Secretary - B.A. Political Science and Government, The George Washington University (2015) - M.A. Political Management, The George Washington University

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#306

Post by [deleted] »

abduhl wrote: post #294
dragonwriter wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they basically won the right to bundle on appeal, If, by “appeal” you mean “settlement negotiated with the new, Microsoft-friendly Administration”, that is correct. That’s not what “appeal” usually means in a legal context.

If you’re convicted of murder because the government dismissed black jurors due to their racial prejudices in order to assure the jury was all white and then the conviction is overturned on appeal and the prosecutor declined to reprosecute, are you guilty of murder? No. You aren’t. More closely: if you take a plea bargain and plead guilty to breaking and entering instead of murder, are you guilty of murder? What if y…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#307

Post by heavyset_go »

eecc wrote: post #98
capableweb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does preventing competition in a specific application category lead to Apple preventing Google from "forcing" iOS users to use Chrome? Not sure I follow your argument here or how allowing browsers would somehow make it possible for Google to automatically install Chrome for iOS users. Imagine if Google suddenly made their Chrome browser behave differently on Google websites compared to others, like 0.5 the perfor…

They are intentionally protecting their ecosystem from the thread of an incumbent strangling their growth and marginalizing their strategy. From a market dominant position it would be Antitrust material. Not in this case: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha...

iOS has more than 60% of the US market.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#308

Post by saurik »

Jasper_ wrote: post #253
capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? What happened was that the DOJ did everything they could to get Microsoft broken up. They got pretty much the entire country on their side, and during the trials they extracted some hilarious quotes from Microsoft and Bill Gates, like arguing about the definition of the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" email. Details emerg…

FWIW, looking just at your final paragraph (as I agree strongly with everything you said, but feel a need to note that it wasn't all a complete waste of time): Bill Gates was effectively forced out of his own company after nearly driving the company to destruction by provoking a judge with his arrogance, and the Microsoft that was left after this mess--notably run by Steve Balmer--had a very difficult time hiring strong talent or having any reasonable strategy for its offerings, and as such was no longer organizationally able to maintain some basic technologies that had become mired in the antitrust case (such as Internet Explorer, which was trivially disrupted by Chrome, and is now effectively gone).

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#309

Post by mindslight »

zepto wrote: post #299
mindslight wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to formally define dark patterns, especially when trying to except traditional dark patterns (recurring sales, coupons, strategically placed roasting chickens, etc). And so any attempt to do that will necessarily "get the government more and more involved". Either through some administrative body that decides whether a certain thing is a "dark pattern", or through judicial remedies ("Here is your 57 c…

> Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software architecture". It's merely just a different form of the website that has a predictable structure . That is software architecture.

That's like calling a bike shed "civil engineering". I don't know what point you're making with the term "software architecture" other than trying to make it sound burdensome.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#310

Post by echelon »

kortilla wrote: post #288
capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

> The list goes on. I'm happy that it's being suggested, I'm just worried how it took so long to get here. Because this is a Gish Gallop of weak individual reasons batched together to make it seem like a stronger obvious argument when it’s not. > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads. You need to be more specific. >…

> > How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it?

> They don’t. Amazon and Facebook both make a fortune from ads.

Yes, but they own search ads and a large percentage of web ads (though the non-siloed web is becoming less and less relevant each year), and they do everything in their power to put people into their ad funnel.

They control 50% of the mobile OS, 70%+ of the browser monoculture, and nearly 100% of search. They can order sites according to which ones use AdSense or AMP, neuter ad blocking (especially of AdSense), and collect behavior across the web even when website owners don't want it.

They're fucking up an entire set of technologies to further their goals.

That's not monopolistic. That's horrific. I don't think we even have a term to describe this yet, it's so bad.

We're all getting Big Teched.

Post reply on HN