EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by africanboy » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

yuliyp wrote: post #57

africanboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the Democratic party of the USA is center-leftish at best. For example they don't openly support - unions - universal free healthcare - strong workers' guaranteed rights (paid holidays, paid sick leave, paternity/maternity, limited working hours - e.g. max 40 hours per week -, overtime pay etc. etc.)

> they don't openly support What's the definition of openly support you're using? Going off the party platform, it seems like they do: > unions > strong workers' guaranteed rights https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/building... see the section "Protecting Workers and Families and Creating Millions of Jobs Across America" > universal free healthcare Except for the word "free", https://democrats.org/whe…

that's interesting.

thanks for posting it.

My knowledge of their program was evidently not updated with their latest propositions.

I hope they'll make it this time.

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

#62

Post by proactivesvcs » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #35

proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly,…

I think we need to acknowledge that a lot of what these agreements outline is, to a large degree, subjective. If human language, or expression in general, weren't contextual and up for interpretation, then I think this would be a viable way of looking at things, but that simply isn't the case. So long as there is room for interpretation, and the consequences (politically, economically, etc.) of those interpretations…

That's a fair statement but as long as a company is not found to be applying bias to their application of their rules, again I see no problem. In the instances we're discussing though, there has been clear violation of terms over a sustained period of time.

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

#63

Post by engineer_22 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly,…

Yeah, so, basically, and I can't believe I have to spell this out, the EU Commission is saying "we need new laws".

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

#64

Post by mistermann » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #40

andrewstuart wrote: post #4

I'm left wing but I despair for the future of the left. If the right had control of the tech companies it would have removed left content years ago and never blinked or even thought twice about it. The right never agonises over its own strong decisions, whereas the left, if it takes strong action , wrings its hands in agony about whether it has done the correct thing or not. That's why in the long run the right will…

Your analysis is not useful because no such entities as "the left" and "the right" exist. It's not remotely helpful to lump complex and differentiated phenomena into binary categories so you can attach simple motivations and behaviors to them.

I agree, but will offer a supplementary idea to:

> It's not remotely helpful to lump complex and differentiated phenomena into binary categories so you can attach simple motivations and behaviors to them

It's not "helpful", to the general populace, but it is extremely useful to existing power structures to divide the populace up along various dimensions and then "attach (via sophisticated media narratives) simple motivations and behaviors to them". Advertising and marketing does just this, and it works quite well, and is there not plentiful evidence that at least suggests the same may be happening to some degree in the realm of politics?

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-clear-pill-part-1-of-5-th...

When people hear one story, they tend to ask: is this true? When they hear two stories, they tend to ask: which one of these is true? Isn’t this a neat trick? Maybe our whole world is built on it. Any point on which both poles concur is shared story: “uncontroversial, bipartisan consensus.”

Shared story has root privilege. It has no natural enemies and is automatically true. Injecting ideas into it is nontrivial and hence lucrative; this profession is called “PR.”

There is no reason to assume that either pole of the spectrum of conflict, or the middle, or the shared story, is any closer to reality than the single pole of the one-story state.

Dividing the narrative has not answered the old question: is any of this true? Rather, it has… dodged it. Stagecraft!

This is even better than supposing that, since we fought Hitler and Hitler was bad, we must be good. These very basic fallacies, or psychological exploits, are deeply embedded in our political operating systems. Like bugs in code, they are invisible until you look straight at them. Then they are obvious.

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

#65

Post by proactivesvcs » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #45

proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly,…

Well, for one, democratic countries are supposed to be governed by representatives elected by people, not by corporate boards. Ability to selectively enable or disable people from being able to access voters is tantamount to having a huge influence on election results. While in the past you could avoid using social media, today this is THE way to reach most of voters. Most people no longer pay substantial attention t…

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to, and the implication that they should be allowed to break the rules they agreed to simply because they're important. An organisation must now allow people to flaunt their rules, helpless to remove them despite the abuse that they perpetrate?

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

#66

Post by rektide » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #35

proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly,…

I think we need to acknowledge that a lot of what these agreements outline is, to a large degree, subjective. If human language, or expression in general, weren't contextual and up for interpretation, then I think this would be a viable way of looking at things, but that simply isn't the case. So long as there is room for interpretation, and the consequences (politically, economically, etc.) of those interpretations…

this argument seems well & sound to me, if I replace "private companies" with "private monopolies". right now I don't think we know how monopolistic these companies are & i don't think we've tried doing much competing. so yes we are under the seat of a few big entities. it's our fault. athe failure of us, our unwillingness to compete, does not give the nation's of the world preimminent domain. the rights of the private entities to converse as they would is to be respected, including excluding unwanted voices. if you have something to say find your own places to say it.

these garbage fire bonanzas ablaze with calls for violence & insurrection with the flimsiest fakest of fabricated basis underneath are unfortunately really bad tests of how monopolistic big tech is, because they doom themselves, seem rankly incompetent, destined to self immolate. competitor platformsust follow some law, which is in many cases what companies do when they kick people off: protect themselves & the rest of the platform from grave risks. i believe companies should be encouraged to find their own ways to remain safe, that nation's ordering them around to control speech in certain governmentally dictated ways would be horrific. cyberspace doesn't deserve this infringement, people don't, even big tech, sucky g useless as it is, doesn't. this isn't china. we don't do that here.

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

#67

Post by LoSboccacc » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

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…

> what the other options are

add political views into the list of non-discrimination laws and let the courts decide, if it's important enough to have to be legislated, that's the closes framework upon which to model it.

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

#68

Post by lima » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

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…

> Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse.

That's what judges and courts are for. Neither government nor platforms should be able to make these decisions unilaterally.

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

#69

Post by zajio1am » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

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…

> Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse.

Leaving B2B aside, for B2C it is basic consumer protection laws common in EU. If a service is offered to a general public, then provider may not arbitrarily exclude someone from using it. If a provider excludes someone for violating ToS, then the excluded one may dispute that at appropriate authority / state office.

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

#70

Post by SulfurHexaFluri » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

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…

The problem is these companies are too big and powerful now. If a small business refuses someone its no big deal, go to another business. But when these titans join together to make an action that affects you and there are no alternatives left, thats a different case.

If both Apple and Google ban your app when the app is legal and useful, is it good for society that there is no way around this?