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

321–330 of 452 posts

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

#321

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

Most jurisdictions do not consider American Plea bargains a proper legal process.

You are suppose to be tried in a public process by an impartial judge and a jury of peers, not making a deal behind closed doors with a prosecutor looking to advance his career.

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

#322

Post by ClumsyPilot »

skystarman wrote: post #153
IgorPartola wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://gizmodo.com/amazon-reportedly-pressures-small-busine... Amazon Reportedly Pressures Small Businesses with Retaliation if They Don't Hand Over User Data

Again, how does this harm consumers?

By destroying competing businesses and reducing consumer choice, isnt it obvious?

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

#323

Post by aww_dang »

twobitshifter wrote: post #202
capableweb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have been more clear. I'm not talking about the "browser shell" (the UI for tabs, settings and so on) but about the "rendering engine" which in the case of Firefox is Gecko on PC, but since Apple has this arbitrary restriction, is Webkit on iOS, which is the same engine everyone on iOS is forced to use, no matter what. So yes, you're using Firefox, but you're still using the same rendering engine for your br…

On Desktop, how many rendering engines are there out there today? 3? Most browser creators cannot afford to create their own rendering engine, so we get Gecko, WebKit, or Blink. With this in mind, when you’re asking for alternative rendering engines, you’re really asking for Google to be able to get their hooks into iOS. It would be nice if Mozilla were free to develop their own engine but that’s not without downside…

It would be nice if developers could debug Safari specific issues without jumping through Apple imposed hoops.

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

#324

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kabdib wrote: post #320
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. Furstly, which law or court case actually establishes that those business practices are right and proper? Secondly, which law or court case establishes that smartphones can be equated with game consoles? There is a huge body of law that governs mobile connectivity, spectrum, emergenc…

>>"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." > Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. Letting anyone put any software they wanted on an Xbox/Playstation/Switch would diminish the platform's value by eroding security and trust. For instance, compare online cheating ecosystems between those three platforms and the PC (where you can run any software you want). The PC…

That is totally irrelevant.

This about not allowing competing browsers as a blanket policy. If this was trully about security, Apple can do as many security audits as they want. They can even charge for them. They can require affidavit, security officers, insurance policy, indemnity, etc.

But they dont because this is not about security, it is about controling the market

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

#325

Post by Unklejoe »

jcrites wrote: post #319
baq wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example: Amazon doesn’t seem to care about fraudulent sellers and fake paid-for reviews on its platform.

Amazon cares substantially about stopping these things. As is the case when you are fighting against other humans, who are crafty, financially-motivated, and are willing to break the law, and may be operating from different jurisdictions where attempting to get the DA to prosecute them or filing a lawsuit against them is ineffective, it's a very difficult battle to fight. As an example I'd be surprised if Amazon coul…

They could start by preventing listings from being renamed.

I have encountered several items with good reviews, but when you read the reviews, they're all talking about a completely different item.

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

#326

Post by zepto »

mindslight wrote: post #309
zepto wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My point is that once you mandate that, then forever all stores must be architected around providing this web API, based on technology assumptions frozen in law.

Building a P2P or distributed store, not based on a central website, just as an example, would be illegal.

This is just one example of how the future would be encumbered forever based on a 90’s software architecture becoming enshrined in law.

The web as it is today is not some endpoint in software evolution.

A Government mandated API is literally the government regulating software architecture.

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

#327

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ben_w wrote: post #316
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. Furstly, which law or court case actually establishes that those business practices are right and proper? Secondly, which law or court case establishes that smartphones can be equated with game consoles? There is a huge body of law that governs mobile connectivity, spectrum, emergenc…

I believe the principal is that everything which is not banned is legal. This probably has a funky Latin translation, but I don’t know as I’m not a lawyer.

John has gone to the pub, a random person gave him $5,000 and said he can keep half if he transfers the rest to Bob. Later it turned out it was drug money.

The question in court will not be "is money laundering illegal" or "is taking money from random people illegal". The question in court will be "does this amount to money laundering, or is john just an idiot and it was not his responsibility to know".

Similarly, here we are discussing not "is market manipulation illegal", but "does the activity carried out by Apple amount to market manipulation"

Comparing Apple to game consoles is basically: "stop selling drugs" - "John does it too, and he is not in jail, so it's fine."

That argument only works if John has been to court and a judge has ruled that he is innocent. That's case law - it established that previously, in similar circumstances, a court has rules that this was / wasn't a crime.

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

#328

Post by andiareso »

ben_w wrote: post #318
echelon wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? > The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch. The iPhone is a general purpose computer, not a gaming toy. You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, spreadsheets, GPS navigation, photos, video - your entire life, a…

> You do finances, email, chat, dating, games, spreadsheets, GPS navigation > For half of Americans, Apple controls what software you can use, and it extorts a 30% cut. 30% (or even 15%) of $0 is $0. Apple gets nothing from me for my finance apps, my email client, my chat apps, my spreadsheet apps, or my GPS apps, because they are free . I can’t comment about dating apps as I’m not using any. Complaining that Apple c…

The argument was "general purpose computer" which would include games. It's not exclusively a gaming device

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

#330

Post by bun_at_work »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #324
kabdib wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"The same reason you can’t put software you want on a Xbox/PlayStation/Switch." > Stop using this argument, its daft and convinces noone. Letting anyone put any software they wanted on an Xbox/Playstation/Switch would diminish the platform's value by eroding security and trust. For instance, compare online cheating ecosystems between those three platforms and the PC (where you can run any software you want). The PC…

That is totally irrelevant. This about not allowing competing browsers as a blanket policy. If this was trully about security, Apple can do as many security audits as they want. They can even charge for them. They can require affidavit, security officers, insurance policy, indemnity, etc. But they dont because this is not about security, it is about controling the market

Controlling what market? The browser market?

A large part of Apple's brand, at this point, is security from snooping, personal privacy, etc etc. It makes sense to control the browser on the iPhone for privacy than it does to seek to eliminate browser competitors. Safari isn't a crucial part of their revenue, devices with the security promise are. Furthermore, the browser seems to be the key space where use privacy is violated from, via cookies and other tracking software. If Apple want's to say they have a pro-privacy device, controlling the browser makes sense for that goal.

It just doesn't make business sense for Apple to be attempting to control the browser market. Maybe you mean they are controlling some other market through the browser, though.

Post reply on HN