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

U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 452 posts

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#431

Post by coding123 »

capableweb wrote: post #5

> potentially barring companies like Amazon.com from operating the markets in which they also compete Absolutely bananas that this haven't been fixed yet! How can Google own the entire ads market and still be allowed to compete in it? Obviously for-profit companies will abuse their positions if it'll earn them more money, and fines ends up being the cost of doing business instead of deterrents. How is Apple allowed t…

It's a rough road to fight that. Trader joes sells non-branded but also branded products. Albertsons/Safeway/Vons sells O brand stuff (the organics), Open Nature, Signature, Primotaglio, etc... Kroger sells a boat load of branded products as well. So it won't be just amazon that would be affected by something like that. However - having only read the article and not the actual bill, maybe it's only affecting "tech".

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#432

Post by dredmorbius »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #422
dredmorbius wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Mens rea ("guilty mind") itself is not a uniformly applied principle. But it's the name of the concept you were attempting to address above. See also actus reus ("guilty act"). And note that in tort liability (as opposed to criminal liability) other standards may apply. "Strict liabilty" is more typically applied in civil law, though there are (I learned responding here) some applications in criminal law as we…

Antitrust law is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

False.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/criminal-enforcement-anti...

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#433

Post by darawk »

ben_w wrote: post #385
darawk wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algorithm designers are human. You can hold them accountable.

This can be done by requiring them to be open about the algorithm, hence “don’t allow black box algorithms”.

The algorithm may be e.g. a DNN which is quite opaque, even if its inputs are revealed.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#434

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kabdib wrote: post #429
anfilt wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not own the hardware, why do they have any say what software I choose to execute. Moreover, when one is selling something that involves transferring all rights in tangible/real property being sold to be transfered. Here apple is reserving the right to decide what can and cant run on the device. This clearly is a violation of property rights. Last I checked apple did not have people sign rent/lease agreemen…

Apple definitely has a say in how its software is run. IOS is licensed for use on Apple-branded devices, with further stipulations requiring, amongst other things, that it remain unmodified (it's right there in the EULA). I'll be the last one to prevent you from running your own software on the hardware you bought. So, knock yourself out: Wipe all the nasty, evil Apple software off of that device and have your way wi…

"I would not expect any help from Apple about how to do this."

This argument is straight up disingenuous- Apple is actively preventing you from running whatever you want on your property and they are preventing you from repairing it. You cannot get them to remove their crap from it.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#435

Post by ben_w »

darawk wrote: post #433
ben_w wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can be done by requiring them to be open about the algorithm, hence “don’t allow black box algorithms”.

The algorithm may be e.g. a DNN which is quite opaque, even if its inputs are revealed.

If technical limitations are incompatible with social concerns, the social concerns are what needs to take priority.

If society wants to make sure algorithms are fair, it may decide one option is to ban black boxes algorithms — if DNNs can’t be comprehended, that means no DNNs. Alternatively, if society says the only way to have a black box is to not compete in the domain the black box judges, then Google et al will have to change their business models.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#436

Post by darawk »

ben_w wrote: post #435
darawk wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The algorithm may be e.g. a DNN which is quite opaque, even if its inputs are revealed.

If technical limitations are incompatible with social concerns, the social concerns are what needs to take priority. If society wants to make sure algorithms are fair, it may decide one option is to ban black boxes algorithms — if DNNs can’t be comprehended, that means no DNNs. Alternatively, if society says the only way to have a black box is to not compete in the domain the black box judges, then Google et al will…

We don't even understand the consequences of the laws we pass in plain English. The idea that news feed algorithms are going to be meaningfully interpretable by anyone is just not practical, even if those algorithms are relatively simple.

The other problem with transparent algorithms is that they are trivial to game. Gaming is almost certainly worse than obscurity.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#437

Post by anfilt »

kabdib wrote: post #429
anfilt wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not own the hardware, why do they have any say what software I choose to execute. Moreover, when one is selling something that involves transferring all rights in tangible/real property being sold to be transfered. Here apple is reserving the right to decide what can and cant run on the device. This clearly is a violation of property rights. Last I checked apple did not have people sign rent/lease agreemen…

Apple definitely has a say in how its software is run. IOS is licensed for use on Apple-branded devices, with further stipulations requiring, amongst other things, that it remain unmodified (it's right there in the EULA). I'll be the last one to prevent you from running your own software on the hardware you bought. So, knock yourself out: Wipe all the nasty, evil Apple software off of that device and have your way wi…

The hardware still will not run any software that is not signed by apple. So even if I wanted to run linux on the device, I can't. The software EULA is not the problem. It's how they are controlling the underlying hardware.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#438

Post by eecc »

pjc50 wrote: post #109
eecc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think so? So please elaborate on how having your platform marginalized to a mere window decoration around the ubiquitous, 100% dominant UI toolkit (Crome) is better for the consumer. Besides, there’s plenty of choice on the market, unless you want to complain about a car manufacturer selling only their own models...

Platforms should disappear into the background. The great benefit of the web is that it presents roughly the same UI everywhere across all manner of devices and browsers. (The big downside of course is that it's not exactly the same). > car manufacturer selling only their own models... My car doesn't tell me who or what it's willing to transport. Yet.

Yup, same shoddy, lowest common denominator, inconsistent UI across all devices and manufacturers.

And to complete the scenario: 1 dominant supplier whose interest is not ideal UX but just invasive and pervasive tracking, and all other actors - being marginalized to mere window decoration - don’t invest a penny in challenging the dominant‘s position, and content themselves with scooping some adware crumbs left over from the market dominator.

Does that sound familiar?

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#439

Post by HWR_14 »

pojntfx wrote: post #50
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't bury your flag on this argument. Many users don't care about that stuff, and Apple is winning the privacy war through decisions like these.

Well, the alternative to PWAs is publishing through proprietary app stores - the users might not care to much, but it's incredibly important for us as devs. Also, one really can't trust a proprietary browser like Safari with their personal data - while one might be able to switch from Chrome due to FLOC on Android, Linux, Windows etc., Safari would _force_ the change on their users, with them being unable to switch t…

As a user and as a dev I have strong opinions about PWAs. I'm not a fan. If I want to visit a website, I'll use a browser to go to a website.

As to your other point, yes if Safari started doing anti-privacy things, I would ditch the iPhone and go Android. Right now, they seem to be supporting my privacy.

Re: U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crackdown

#440

Post by HWR_14 »

jiofih wrote: post #17
eecc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is Apple allowed to disallow any other web browsers on their mobile devices? We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different? Nope, total Apple and Oranges. Forbidding other HTML rendering engines on iOS, prevented other massive players (Google) from forcing their browser platform onto Apple’s user base and Electron-ized Apple’s ecosystem making iOS a marginal runtime. Or wor…

How different is that from Microsoft and IE?

Microsoft was taking a vibrant and competitive market for browsers and crushing it. Apple is taking a monoculture for browsers and providing a powerful bulwark against Chromium.
Post reply on HN