This bill is great in theory, but.... Getting the language correct and the implementation will be extraordinarily difficult. For instance: Let's say you are o

This bill is great in theory, but.... Getting the language correct and the implementation will be extraordinarily difficult. For instance: Let's say you are on twitter. Does twitter have to build an email interface so I can DM my friends who are on gmail? Or maybe I'm on Facebook - do they have to let me allow people on Myspace to "friend" me? Maybe I see an article on ZDnet, and I'm tired of using multiple accounts, so instead, I'd like to move away from Discus to Matrix for posting. Who is responsible here - ZDnet, Discus, Matrix? Will MSFT be forced to allow me to port my entire Skype history and number to Verizon? Or to WeChat? Will AT&T and instagram be forced to allow me to post on instagram using my AT&T account? Interoperability of protocols is important (e.g. one email provider not blocking another). But the law of unintended consequences here is going to be huge. Security alone is going to be a nightmare. I agree this goal is laudable, but the government never made Fords have to use GM parts (only that they use standardized gasoline). I think the idea that they have to expose an interface makes sense, and is much less problematic than full portability and interoperability. Words are important here, and the actual word choices in the legislation are going to radically affect our future. Read that last sentence again - this is a huge problem with any major legislation, and legislation with technology in particular.