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

Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#111

Post by amiga386 »

octo888 wrote: post #106
gampleman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how European courts have been interpreting it. When they say "free consent" they do mean free as in beer, so a "consent or loose your job" provisions would almost certainly be thrown out.

What job is being lost when you are applying for a new job? > That's not how European courts have been interpreting it Any particular relevant cases I can lookup?

Firstly, the WTD makes mandatory a number of things that cannot be opted out from. The only thing opt-outable is the maximum of 48 hours work per week on average, and it is left to member states to legislate how that opt-out works (should they choose to have the opt-out at all).

In the UK, to pick a specific example, it is a combination of some workers not being allowed a choice of opt-out (e.g. healthcare workers, self-employed, "gig workers"), some union workers derogating that right to their unions collective bargaining... but for every other worker, the 48 hours is the law. You cannot mandate it in a contract. You can't advertise a job where you set the hours and those hours are on average over 48 hours per week. It's not a valid job and you are immediately in breach of statutory law.

https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/the-48-hour-weekl...

https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/jobs-with-differe...

> Any particular relevant cases I can lookup?

You'll have to look at member states cases, it's on them to define how the opt-out works.

One example: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61123e81e90e0... "In respect of the 48 hour week the claimant had not signed an opt out and as such if the claimant was working in excess of 48 hours average across the week then her right was being infringed. It is not in dispute that this is a statutory right capable of protection."

UK's Employment Rights Act 1996 section 101A: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/101A

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#112

Post by fsflover »

octo888 wrote: post #108
fsflover wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. AFAIK the company must make it opt-in, non-mandatory and provide a way to change your mind at any moment.

Yes, as I said, by putting it in the employment contract when applying for a job. Honestly it's hilarious how some people view GDPR. They think CEOs lose sleep at night worrying about it, that they might go to jail for it, or have to pay 100M Euro fine for a breach of it. It's simply not the case. The reality of EU directives and regulations are very different to how they are sold. Many people fall prey to the market…

> Many people fall prey to the marketing

It seems you did fall prey to the anti-GDPR marketing. It's being actually enforced [0] and doesn't allow "all or nothing" pseudo-consent [1].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39813801

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39272861; (upd:) an even better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974361

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#113

Post by offsky »

The thing I don't understand is how unethical stuff like this comes to be built. Take the example where nurses with debt get lower wages because they are desperate. Some manager had to come up with this idea and then get various people to agree and then get a team of engineers to implement it. Thats a lot of people agreeing to do something so clearly evil (to me at least). Are there that many people who just don't care? Whenever I read stories similar to this I always wonder how many people went along without objecting.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#114

Post by spacemadness »

offsky wrote: post #113

The thing I don't understand is how unethical stuff like this comes to be built. Take the example where nurses with debt get lower wages because they are desperate. Some manager had to come up with this idea and then get various people to agree and then get a team of engineers to implement it. Thats a lot of people agreeing to do something so clearly evil (to me at least). Are there that many people who just don't ca…

Just look at the state of the world for your answer. People sell out their morality for pay all the time. Especially under capitalism.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#115

Post by ycombinatrix »

like_any_other wrote: post #75
Mindwipe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would effectively have to exit all international copyright law treaties to do so, which is defacto removing any international recognition of copyright for works from your country.

Copyright is covered by the Berne convention, which prohibits neither circumvention nor reverse-engineering, so even in this "what you're proposing couldn't easily be done without also doing this other thing, so I'm going to pretend you've proposed that other thing also, but I won't say so explicitly" interpretation, that is not true.

>"what you're proposing couldn't easily be done without also doing this other thing, so I'm going to pretend you've proposed that other thing also, but I won't say so explicitly"

that sir, is a strawman argument

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#116

Post by Teever »

like_any_other wrote: post #95
rwmj wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of course we can never change international treaties.

They can be, but the point remains that it is not US tariffs forcing Europe into them - it is the doing of their own governments (whose preferences should not be confused with those of their citizens).

The assumption underlying this is that the governments that implement the WIPO treaty are doing so without duress or threat of tariffs from the United States which may or may not be true. We'll never know.

But what we do know is that the EU has recently put regulations in place that allow them to curtail the IP privileges given to companies in countries that they feel economically threatened by.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Coercion_Instrument

It will be interesting to see them use this or if the mere existence of the law is and the mere possibility of use is them using it.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#117

Post by amiga386 »

aitchnyu wrote: post #72
bootsmann wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really funny to me that with both the AI act and GDPR, you will see swathes of threads of people on HN bashing the law only to then later discover the purpose of this legislation from first principles.

15 years back, I was subscribed to EU official blog which presents their side of tabloid headlines like "Overpaid French suits want to ban blue stickers on only freckled apples". Did they publish ones for AI Act and GDPR, especially as more countries elect manly commonsense billionaire sympathizers?

They stopped in 2017, sadly. https://web.archive.org/web/20200131192225/https://blogs.ec....

Edit: their very last entry was on GDPR: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20200131184218/https://...

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#118

Post by p3rls »

ajb wrote: post #25
keiferski wrote: post #11

It’s unfortunate that he is continuing to use the term enshittification, because that pretty much guarantees that no serious academic, legal scholar, or politician is going to engage with these ideas publicly. Which is a shame, as many of the solutions here are explicitly legal ones. Words and names matter, especially when it comes to political actions.

I totally agree. The term is a puerile way of "owning the cons" following Haidt's idea that conservatives have a strong sense of disgust and liberals do not. The problem is that a) many conservatives are also a potential constituency for increasing integrity in the private sector, and b) many people on the political left also have a strong sense of disgust. Doctorow himself I think has a weak sense of disgust (a lot…

I can barely remember the boingboing era of the internet, but when I found out Doctorow was a serious writer I remember having a similar reaction...

Then again, look how the term has taken off, perhaps it's we who are the shit-marketers.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#119

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

keiferski wrote: post #62
card_zero wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cory Doctorow suggests using "platform decay" if the term enshittification bothers you. https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/14/pearl-clutching/ "just use one of the dozens of words that failed to gain public attention over the past 25 years".

I've already written about 5 comments in this thread explaining why it's a poor choice of a word from a pragmatic point of view. I'm also not super interested in his rant about people criticizing his approach are just "pearl clutchers."

> I've already written about 5 comments in this thread explaining [my opinion].

Other people have written more comments in this thread explaining a different opinion. It doesn't really matter how many times you've explained yours. For what it's worth, I think an ancestor comment to this one poignantly addresses a particular perspective:

> The terminology is irrelevant. Senators and judges won't deal with this because they're being paid not to, not because there's a rude word in the name.

It might help to tailor your arguments to this perspective as I suspect it is the most common one. I also get the feeling that's how Doctorow figures it's "pearl clutching": it's less about the "bad word" and more about the "profits".

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#120

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

keiferski wrote: post #48
komali2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest answer to your point here is "says who?" Seriously, can you back up this claim?

Sure - take a look at every major piece of legislation passed in the last century. Notice anything about their names? The Patriot Act. The New Deal. They are all pretty "positive" names without any sort of vulgarity or negative connotation. Then also notice the total lack of major legislation with vulgar, offensive, or immature words in the name.

The ACE Act. Actively Curtail Enshittification.

It's all political theater and a real political will to end enshittification will end it. That is what's missing, not a positive-sounding name.

Post reply on HN