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

EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 286 posts

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#161

Post by Talanes »

stale2002 wrote: post #113
Talanes wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. You're not allowed to walk in to Costco without a Costco card. Plenty of restaurants and clubs have a dress code. Most places have "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" rules.

> A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. No, that is not true for all private services. For example, common carriers have strong restrictions on their ability to refuse service to others. Common carrier laws aren't particularly controversial. These existing common carrier laws could be expanded to apply to other things.

Common carriers are a tiny minority of businesses. Plenty of other exception exist too, but they are exceptions. Because the default is that businesses do reserve the right to refuse service.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#162

Post by mc32 »

username90 wrote: post #157
kolinko wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your preassumption seems to be that centralised networks are somehow unavoidable in tech. I would argue otherwise - both Facebook and Twitter could exist decentralised - it would just be less profitable for the companies.

It being less profitable effectively makes it an impossibility without regulations.

When advertising revenue is involved less revenue does not mean poor. Look at how much money google and facebook have to waste!

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#163

Post by grej »

njharman wrote: post #135
syntaxing wrote: post #60

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority v…

It’s not always about majority values. Large part of the bill of rights exists to protect individuals from the majority. Anti-discrimination, fair housing many other laws exist to protect against majority. Democracy is not autocratic rule of the majority. It is rule by compromise.

An unrestricted democracy can be exactly that. But hopefully, a country has sufficient guardrails in its constitution to prevent it from becoming a mob rule.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#164

Post by rmsaksida »

op00to wrote: post #148
mc32 wrote: post #123

I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an app…

If the EU doesn’t like it, they should make their own platform. This isn’t a public park, we are talking about privately owned property.

If EU countries don't like it, they may also ban US tech companies as they're sovereign countries that don't need to bow to foreign corporations.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#165

Post by mc32 »

dcposch wrote: post #160
mc32 wrote: post #123

I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an app…

That is certainly what they're worried about. Here's a less flattering angle on the same worry. Europe is caught pants-down. They are realizing how weak they are in tech and scrambling to fix it. The facts: - None of the 20 most valuable companies in the world are European. Most are US or China based, and many are tech. - A tiny number of successful startups are European. I think their biggest in the last 20 years is…

I think the last part is a deep concern and if it’s not should be.

Google, Salesforce or Microsoft should not be able to wake up one day and say, you know what, I don’t like those people in Czechia, let’s cut their GSuite/O365 Access with no time to migrate.

These companies have too much heft and influence. And democratic governments have not caught up to that.

Authoritarians know the deal and that’s why they control them. They know how they can sway elections, not through ‘bots but via their algorithms and suppression or promotion of narratives as they see fit.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#166

Post by username90 »

mc32 wrote: post #162
username90 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being less profitable effectively makes it an impossibility without regulations.

When advertising revenue is involved less revenue does not mean poor. Look at how much money google and facebook have to waste!

Yeah, which is why it would be possible with regulations. If it wasn't enough to cover costs then it wouldn't be possible with regulations either.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#167

Post by bjustin »

zmmmmm wrote: post #126

It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up…

Interoperability can make a market more consolidated than it otherwise might be. Look at how GitHub dominates the DVCS hosting market.

Ben Thompson's idea that social networks shouldn't be able to buy other social networks would be better IMO for avoiding problems like Facebook having too much power from also owning IG and WhatsApp. Not sure what a good solution would be for other companies such as Amazon having so much power.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#168

Post by ImprobableTruth »

mc32 wrote: post #162
username90 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being less profitable effectively makes it an impossibility without regulations.

When advertising revenue is involved less revenue does not mean poor. Look at how much money google and facebook have to waste!

I think the point is that no company will ever willingly choose to make less money unless they're forced to.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#169

Post by corty »

zmmmmm wrote: post #126

It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up…

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rapidly delete content that might be against some law. Not after a court decision or at least an official order, no no, nothing so formal. A user complaint is sufficient to trigger the need to check within a few hours, have the platform decide to delete and report. No due process, nothing.

Penalties for insufficient reaction by the platform are steep and of course set after the fact. Therefore platforms will err on the side of caution and delete far more than they would have to.

And people like Merkel who are responsible for that law have the gall to complain when something their censorship law stipulated is done to a fellow politician...

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-germany-twitter/ge...

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#170

Post by grej »

mikkergp wrote: post #140

This is a mess. Something I just thought about, there’s been a lot of talk about the US regulating the social networks, but will there be first amendment issues if the US tries to create rules or laws for how social networks can regulate communication? Seems like it might be a catch 22

There will absolutely be, but at least then restriction of speech in the public square will be driven by some sort of legal process. Not everything is subject to first amendment protections, and inciting riots clearly falls into the category that isn’t.

The danger is that almost any difficult decision has some kind of danger associated with it. Disagree with Covid restrictions ? Dangerous. Challenge the efficacy of a vaccine? Dangerous.

But I think we’d be better off if the decisions on takedowns and censorship of those positions were legislated in courts of law that yield clear guidance, not decided arbitrarily by a select few members of an oligopoly.

Post reply on HN