441–450 of 635 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pay or have your information harvested and sold. Its extortion.
Who does Facebook sell data to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They just made it illegal for Meta specifically to do it, and they’re reserving judgment for anyone else on their hit list covered by the DMA. The DMA is not neutral laws on neutral principles despite the PR and the extra layers of indirection, it targets American and Chinese companies specifically because that’s what it was designed to do.
Not Meta specifically, although Meta as a monopoly on being apple to infrige this rule. (A long time ago, in a capitalism far, far way, America was against monopolies and cartels. Those days will come back.) > The DMA is not neutral laws on neutral principles What do you mean "neutral law on neutral principles" ? Does that exist ? I can agree on some version of "not a neutral law" in that it is "objectively" targeted…
Booking.com is owned by an American company.
> In the EU, to have pretty strong memory of people doing bad things with extensive databases
Lack of databases didn't stop "people" from doing bad things. They built the databases, rather quickly, while they were doing bad things.
I find it bizarre that the response to trying to prevent the rise of another fascist European government was to avoid collecting data as if a populist fourth Reich wouldn't ignore the law and use neighbors to rat out neighbors again. Not that I believe for a second any European country doesn't keep far more extensive records on citizens than the Nazis did when they came to power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand what you're on about. Likewise, I think we have a miscommunication here because I agree with everything you wrote. I'm not making a legal argument about free speech at all. I agree with your analysis on the legality there. Now that said, I do think the Biden admin crossed the line of legality with their collaboration (and a little implied threatening) Twitter and Facebook, and their whole establi…
> To go back to the Lab Leak Theory example when Youtube was taking down any videos that even mentioned it (even if the mentioner was a well-respected Evolutionary Biologist) wasn't illegal, but it was a total abandonment of free speech principles. Not really, this is a case where two cooperating parties, who both have speech rights, have a dispute about which speech they collectively want to espouse. Unless you're s…
I tried to make clear I wasn't making a legal argument, but since you mentioned it I will address it, but first I'll just say that no I'm not saying that people should lose their free speech rights when they form a business. I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote, but no, legally they don't and shouldn't (with maybe one exception, mentioned next). What I have a problem with is the lack of cultural appreciation for free speech. Culturally, the powerful people at Youtube decided that free speech was not important, at least not as important as controlling the narrative and preventing the spread of ideas they considered "dangerous" (or whatever description they might provide). I think that's the mainstream cultural attitude in the USA today, and I think that's unfortunate. I wish that everyone would believe as I do, that free speech as a cultural value is important and should be honored and respected, especially when it's speech you disagree with.
But to the legal argument: When that "business" gets to be the size and scope of a company like Youtube, yes I do think some regulations (i.e. restrictions) on what they are allowed to impose on their users are reasonable. If we had a dozen small providers then I don't think there's any need for regulation there because the market competition will provide a powerful check on potential abuse, but Youtube is an entrenched behemoth with a giant moat. At that scale, the amount of power they have over the people is immense, and IMHO approaches that of the government, and therefore there need to be some checks on that power.
I do also think the "compelled speech" defense for Youtube et al is a bit of a stretch. I agree that compelled speech is not ok and is just as bad as restricted speech. However, I do see a difference between being a communication service and someone being compelled to say certain speech. I would strongly oppose an attempt to compel Youtube the company to say something, but I don't think somebody having a channel that is clearly attributed to themselves and not to the parent company, is the equivalent of forcing Youtube the company to say something specific.
For example, imagine a world where the telephone system operators got to decide which speech was permitted on their phone lines. They had people listening in the conversation and "moderating" by cutting off the live feed if the topic veered into something they disagreed with, and any voicemails/recordings made were also deleted and scrubbed so the recipients wouldn't hear the wrong think. In that scenario would you defend the rights of the phone company not to host "compelled" speech that they disagree with? Compelled speech would be forcing the company themselves to say something. Them passing the electricity on the wire (aka being a "dumb pipe") is not the same thing.
I also think the argument falls apart when taken to it's logical extent. Who decides what speech they are "compelled" to host? If I make a Youtube video and say "I support " are they being compelled to say that? I don't think so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed with your first point. Regarding TikTok though the argument was never (AFAIK) that they were actively breaking the law but rather that their structure and ownership posed a threat to US interests. That's pretty reasonable and largely mirrors China's stance against the US. If anything the surprising thing is how lenient western governments tend to be towards foreign corporations. They seem to prioritize free tr…
I find this so confusing. Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk are foreigners who are both demonstrably influencing American politics through media they control. What makes Tiktok different?
Tesla is headquartered and has most operations based in the US. Murdoch's ventures are similar AFAIK.
Given how much surveillance modern vehicles do I wouldn't be surprised if imports start being subjected to additional scrutiny at some point. But at least most vehicles can't be used to subtly and intentionally manipulate the owner's perception of the world so I guess the stakes are a bit lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The root of your confusion is you think when you've installed and run the app you are no longer in "Costco", but you never left. You can buy any number of in game items on iOS and then go and use those same items in the Play Store version of the games, and vice versa.
The root of yours is that you keep trying to make this about McDonalds, Amazon, Ebay, Costco or some other contraption instead of the App Store, which is what this is actually is about. Not that the argument matters, because the exact moment when you leave Costco has no bearing on the fact that Costco doesn't restrict what payment processor are used in the digital goods that it sells. But even if it did, Apple's ToS…
As I pointed out:
> You can buy any number of in game items on iOS and then go and use those same items in the Play Store version of the games, and vice versa.
To be precise you can:
1. Install a game on an iPhone
2. Sign into the game with account for that developer, or even using Facebook
3. Buy in game currency in the game, using the Apple payment processing
4. Install the game on an Android phone
5. Sign into the game with that same account
6. Use the in game currency you bought on the iPhone when playing on the Android phone
7. Buy more in game currency in the Play Store using the Google payment processing
8. Go back to the iPhone and see you have the in game currency there
What is your mental model of how all that works and why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after It's also probably the most dangerous for Apple. It creates a cash incentive to push people outside of Apple's walled garden and show them what's outside. I really really hope Apple gets its act together, they are the greatest "the user experience comes first" company and they actually have great hard tech but they show signs of rent seeking behavior which…
Apple has its act together. Those, who are not Apple, do not in comparison. They are Big Mad that Apple does. You don't understand the term "rent seeking". Because in this case, it's Apple's competitors that are rent seeking by utilizing the force of the government to make Apple give competitors access to its private but non-monopolistic ecosystem. I think that Apple should call that bluff and leave the EU. Which in…
In which world does a company give up on close to $100B in revenue out of spite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it should! Then Apple's App Store and IAP could compete on its own merits, rather than restricting competition from existing at all.
Apple does compete on its own merits. Its merits are that it built and controls the operating system and hardware that people choose to buy. If other companies have an issue, then they can build their own software, their own hardware, and compete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has its act together. Those, who are not Apple, do not in comparison. They are Big Mad that Apple does. You don't understand the term "rent seeking". Because in this case, it's Apple's competitors that are rent seeking by utilizing the force of the government to make Apple give competitors access to its private but non-monopolistic ecosystem. I think that Apple should call that bluff and leave the EU. Which in…
People like you keep forgetting that the EU is the single largest consumer market in the world. This does not mean that Apple gets most of it revenue from the EU, but it's still a sweet $90B in 2024. In which world does a company give up on close to $100B in revenue out of spite?
> Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. To me, this is the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after. It is unfair that Apple restricts Netflix from telling it's users that they can sign up and pay for Netlifx…
Aren't Americans always going on about free speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thats only kinda right. The DMA does include booking.com as a gatekeeper, which is european. But most gatekeepers (except booking and tiktok) are US-based
Booking.com was European, is not any more. It is now a subsidiary of Booking Holding (formerly Priceline), based in Connecticut.