3 ms·
How is enforcing a standard protocol for communication sacrificing the ability of startups to compete with large corporations? I believe it's the contrary - a s
by vihren 8y ago
How is enforcing a standard protocol for communication sacrificing the ability of startups to compete with large corporations? I believe it's the contrary - a standard protocol would mean that any new app (made by a startup for example) can enter the big sandbox with all other users and they all can communicate freely.
E-mail is a good example for that. If you want you can build an e-mail client and sell it or distribute it to the people and if it's better than the alternatives - great! Imagine a world where the e-mail protocol was proprietary and locked down and Gmail has become the dominant player. How would we then have alternatives? How would an e-mail startup enter the market?
Your argument further supports regulation and an unified standard than it disproves it.
- chatmasta 8y agoI agree that a single standards protocol for chat would be good for everyone. However, I’m extremely skeptical that governments regulating, and defining, that standard is a good idea. The first problem is that there are many different governments. Will each have their own standard, or will it be another extrajurisdictional legislation like GDPR? The second problem is that any government regulation is going to include clauses that benefit the government and law enforcement, e.g. backdoored encryption. If, and it’s a big IF, the government could force a standard that was limited in scope to interopability, with no backdoors in encryption or increased cost of implementation, then I could maybe get behind this idea. But given the past behavior of governments regulating technologies, and feature creep of regulation, I am extremely wary of any new legislation to regulate technology standards.