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

EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 351 posts

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#111

Post by kmlx »

grishka wrote: post #96
dchftcs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one side supports a feature, the other side doesn't, they're not interoperable.

If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature.

how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? that's just degrading the experience...

and this is just one small reason why the industry decided against moving forward with this decades ago. it simply didn't make any sense then, certainly doesn't make sense now.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#112

Post by kmlx »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #63
grishka wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly, open standards also slow down the development of new features, as everybody needs to be "on board" for new features to roll out. Capability negotiation is a thing. It's perfectly fine to support some baseline feature set (one-to-one text messages) and build more optional features on top of it. But, yes, it's important that the protocol is designed to be extensible in the first place.

> It's perfectly fine to support some baseline feature set (one-to-one text messages) and build more optional features on top of it. So keep the status quo (SMS/MMS) and build more features on top of that ?

> So keep the status quo (SMS/MMS) and build more features on top of that ?

what you are describing can be called "iMessage" :)

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#113

Post by robertlagrant »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #108
agilob wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>interoperability requirements for messaging services, meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger Who will be decrypting WA and Signal message to pass them to Facebook Messanger?

There's no need for decryption. If you want to send things to Facebook Messenger, you can just send it to that service directly.

The topic is e2ee.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#114

Post by kmlx »

pif wrote: post #36
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…

> open standards also slow down the development of new features On one hand, that is not right: open standards mean no walled garden, rather than each garden equally ugly. On the other hand, that is exactly the point: no new feature can be used to buy the users' freedom to interact with customers of other services.

> On the other hand, that is exactly the point: no new feature can be used to buy the users' freedom to interact with customers of other services

so the point is a degraded experience? how can that be the point?

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#115

Post by grishka »

kmlx wrote: post #111
grishka wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature.

how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? that's just degrading the experience... and this is just one small reason why the industry decided against moving forward with this decades ago. it simply didn't make any sense then, certainly doesn't make sense now.

> that's just degrading the experience...

Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#116

Post by kmlx »

dureuill wrote: post #25
hrnnnnnn wrote: post #2

> Parliament also succeeded in convincing the Council of interoperability requirements for messaging services, meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms. For group chats, this requirement will be rolled out over a period of four years. This would be great. I remember using pidgin back in the day and it was really convenient…

good news. we also need interoperability requirements for social networks. like twitter and facebook must be mandated by law to provide access to their networks to smaller networks. only then would people be free to leave these networks without suffering from "network effect"

> like twitter and facebook must be mandated by law to provide access to their networks to smaller networks.

makes no sense. you can already pull all your data out of those services and import it into whatever other service you want.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#117

Post by robertlagrant »

ckastner wrote: post #95
naoqj wrote: post #45

It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose.

> It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose. The EU is choosing to favor acting on behalf of their people, rather than some sector. If that sector can't make money in ways that are not immoral with regards to the people, so be it. For example: Why shouldn't a 30%-fee walled garden be destroyed?

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.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#118

Post by robertlagrant »

pjerem wrote: post #90

Did I interpret correctly that I’ll soon be able to install a multi-protocol IM app on my iPhone without going through the App Store ? I can barely believe it. It looks monumental in terms of competition potential.

The primary feature will be end to end decryption.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#119

Post by stkdump »

kmlx wrote: post #100
agilob wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>interoperability requirements for messaging services, meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger Who will be decrypting WA and Signal message to pass them to Facebook Messanger?

yeah, i don't think this was thought out, or at least i haven't read anything on this subject. how does the draft text deal with cryptography?

I don't think laws have to explain how to technically solve these things. e2ee could be maintained, it all depends on the level of integration/interoperation that these companies will choose. Of course, it is equally likely that they won't bother (since e2ee is under constant attack from governments anyway) and just don't go that extra mile.

Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants

#120

Post by Hamcha »

naoqj wrote: post #102
ckastner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose. The EU is choosing to favor acting on behalf of their people, rather than some sector. If that sector can't make money in ways that are not immoral with regards to the people, so be it. For example: Why shouldn't a 30%-fee walled garden be destroyed?

Because it's their corporation and they can do whatever they want with it, and because it's far from a monopoly since there are alternatives.

The scope at which those alternatives exist are different than where the monopoly is established. Ie. The App Store has a monopoly on iOS, but iOS does not have a monopoly in the mobile space.

This is like saying a state-mandated ISP/Gas company wouldn't be a monopoly since you can just move to another country.

You might wanna push the argument that nobody is forcing you to use iOS, but I think the problem runs deeper. In many fields and even just everyday life, you are now required to run a modern phone OS (eg. the option for not having the official COVID green pass app here in Italy is to find an authorized place that will print you a green pass on paper, and it's hard to find one, let alone schedule everything and get there without a pre-existing pass) and we're barely lucky that Google is playing by laxer rules than Apple is. If not punishing existing bad actors, these rules are a nice framework to prevent them for taking over in the future.

Post reply on HN