EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

Post by Vespasian » Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 11:56 AM UTC

can16358p wrote: post #140

Vespasian wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then they better get their shit together and implement the features on both ends. They have lots of devs and project management experience. If they don't want to do interop it's just fair that customers are complaining. Nothing a typical chat group on WhatsApp uses is particularly innovative or unique. Text, Voice, Images, Video, map links and attachments probably cover roughly 99% of the use case and everyone s…

They can, but why they should be forced? I mean its their own platform, they shouldn't be used to offer interop. They _could_, if they wanted to, but it's their platform after all, and forcing a private company to open their own pripriatery platform to 3rd parties is plain wrong and against the rights of the company. It's theirs after all. The right thing here would be making a standard, modern way of communication t…

Post by tgv » Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 12:00 PM UTC

niemandhier wrote: post #159

The interoperability features are needed. We all should have a look at Russia and see what can happen if your infrastructure depends to strongly on locked systems. Sure this time we all support the sanction, next time it might be us.

Post by hackerfromthefu » Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 12:01 PM UTC

chockchocschoir wrote: post #82

8fingerlouie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms The way i read it, they're calling for open standards, which can be a good thing. Sadly, open standards also slow down the development of new features, as everybody needs to be "on board" for new features to roll out. Take email (SMTP, IMAP, etc) as an example, where no major progr…

> Sadly, open standards also slow down the development of new features, as everybody needs to be "on board" for new features to roll out. Take email (SMTP, IMAP, etc) as an example, where no major progress has been made in 25+ years, despite the platform being hopelessly insecure. A more successful example of open standards would be the various standards that browsers use. Would you say that browser innovation has sl…

Post by ericmay » Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 12:11 PM UTC

ckastner wrote: post #137

robertlagrant wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% fees are not immoral. You may not like them, but that's very far from the same thing. A moral question would be "how much should governments control voluntary interactions between customers, platforms and products?" The immoral answer might well be "As much as it will help them gain short-term votes", not the moral one.

I didn't say 30% fees are immoral, I said 30% fee walled gardens are immoral. Especially when you make it all but impossible for third parties to operate outside of that walled garden.

Post by robertlagrant » Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 12:13 PM UTC

ckastner wrote: post #137

robertlagrant wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% fees are not immoral. You may not like them, but that's very far from the same thing. A moral question would be "how much should governments control voluntary interactions between customers, platforms and products?" The immoral answer might well be "As much as it will help them gain short-term votes", not the moral one.

I didn't say 30% fees are immoral, I said 30% fee walled gardens are immoral. Especially when you make it all but impossible for third parties to operate outside of that walled garden.