4 ms·

"...should live with the notion that Google... I don't think we can start from this premise anymore. This premise is precisely what is under question. The lai

"...should live with the notion that Google... I don't think we can start from this premise anymore. This premise is precisely what is under question. The laissez faire framing of this premise is: (1) users can use whatever services they want. (2) services have terms and conditions (3) don't like it, don't "sign it." The frame that is taking shape (eg, GDPR, Zuck's parliamentary question time grilling) is different. Terms & Conditions are not a contract. Take it or leave it propositions are not OK (especially not for monoplies). They're a disingenuous game that does not represent an agreement in any way. Your actual agreement with customers is dictated by law and custom, and these are going to be updated. South Park paradied this concept with the human centipod. It sounds simpler than it is, because our legal systems are ancient and ridiculous. Our legal systems can't, for example, just say "don't spy on everyone." It must define spying in minute detail, while trying to avoid loopholes and bycatch. This is why laws are so complicated. But regardless... terms and conditions have reached well into the "reduced to absurdity" point.

briandear 9y ago
Facebook is a monopoly? That’s absurd. Google also isn’t a monopoly. A monopoly doesn’t mean “big with lots of users and few competitors.” A monopoly is when a company is the exclusive provider of a service or a trade. Bing, Duck Duck Go, Fastmail, Protonmail, iCloud, Vimeo Twitter, Ello, Signal, 500px It isn’t like Google and Facebook control access to steel thus making it impossible to build a new product. So yes, you can just not use the service. I don’t use Facebook, Insta or What’s App anymore. No big deal for me at all; I just asked actual friends on Facebook for their email addresses. I share photos with iPhoto shared galleries, I use iMessage or Signal, I use Twitter. Suggesting that we are obligated to accept terms and conditions is nonsense.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "A monopoly doesn’t mean “big with lots of users and few competitors.” A monopoly is when a company is the exclusive provider of a service or a trade." That is the legal definition of a monopoly. Legally, at least in the US and the EU, one does not have to be the sole provider of something to have monopoly power. And, quite frankly, I do not care if there are competitors or not. No one likes these terms, no one wants these terms, and no one sure as hell wants the company to be able to say, "Take it or leave it." So I'm perfectly happy with regulation saying they can't do that.

briandear 9y ago

Facebook is a monopoly? That’s absurd. Google also isn’t a monopoly. A monopoly doesn’t mean “big with lots of users and few competitors.” A monopoly is when a company is the exclusive provider of a service or a trade. Bing, Duck Duck Go, Fastmail, Protonmail, iCloud, Vimeo Twitter, Ello, Signal, 500px It isn’t like Google and Facebook control access to steel thus making it impossible to build a new product. So yes, you can just not use the service. I don’t use Facebook, Insta or What’s App anymore. No big deal for me at all; I just asked actual friends on Facebook for their email addresses. I share photos with iPhoto shared galleries, I use iMessage or Signal, I use Twitter. Suggesting that we are obligated to accept terms and conditions is nonsense.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
"A monopoly doesn’t mean “big with lots of users and few competitors.” A monopoly is when a company is the exclusive provider of a service or a trade." That is the legal definition of a monopoly. Legally, at least in the US and the EU, one does not have to be the sole provider of something to have monopoly power. And, quite frankly, I do not care if there are competitors or not. No one likes these terms, no one wants these terms, and no one sure as hell wants the company to be able to say, "Take it or leave it." So I'm perfectly happy with regulation saying they can't do that.