6 ms·

Far too many optimistic voices here and that scares me. I don't see this app store being about providing alternatives. that's just a talking point. This app st

Far too many optimistic voices here and that scares me. I don't see this app store being about providing alternatives. that's just a talking point. This app store is all about forcing every android sold in India to have a system installed govt driven app, which will report back to the govt on tons of private information about the device and owner. Information that Indian govt will be too incompetent to keep safe and given its authoritarian nature, should never have access to. This is an authoritarian nightmare abut to happen. Modi wants India to move in the direction that China chose. And this scares me a lot.

tomcat27 6y ago
authoritarianism is when a ex judicial company has so strong influence over regulations and those adjudicated arbitrarily and in-transparent and the effected party couldn't do a damn thing about it.. while it's not the best solution, there is merit to it. one of the role of governance could be to help setup an environment for healthy competition. Well it took decades of work at NASA before one private player like space x created momentum outside government.
bilbo0s 6y ago
I agree with you, the worst is about to happen worldwide. The Indians clearly want more control. The Chinese obviously are never going to relinquish any control. Even the South Americans and especially the Africans are starting to look at regionally fenced mobile and internet services as a method of both more control over social media and growing their economies. (As well as providing jobs for their youth.) I think the saying was something like freedom dies to thunderous applause.
- phatfish 6y ago
  I'm not happy with governments taking such an active role. Ideally they help home-grown alternatives and push out American/Chinese corporations to give them space. That is probably too little too late at this point though. Google, Facebook, Apple et al. have shown they will not stop until they dominate digital markets worldwide. Aggressive intervention by governments is the only way for them to wrestle back control. At least with the "Indian Government App Store" there is no smoke and mirrors with regards to who has access to the data. Tech companies hand over whatever governments ask for anyway.
  - powerapple 6y ago
    All we need is a proper way to tax these companies. It is totally okay that Google or Facebook is doing the work, the people can tax them and get a fair cut from the profit.
    - phatfish 6y ago
      Yes you are right, taxing global companies effectively would help greatly. There seems to be no will (in the West at least) to do anything about it though. Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers. Maybe there does need to be the global coordinated effort on tax reform that is the typical excuse for why nothing is ever changed. I can see why punitive action against foreign corporations could be seen as the easier option.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        > Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers. I think that's unfortunately true, but there must be a point of diminishing returns. Close enough loopholes (intentional loopholes or otherwise) and companies end up spending more money on tax lawyers than the value of the actual tax break. Even if some companies are able to use some loopholes, closing many of them still means more tax revenue for states. We don't need to get to a "perfect" state here.
    - franga2000 6y ago
      "All we need" == an entire restructuring of every major country's government from the ground up. Not that it would work anyways...
      - powerapple 6y ago
        Fair enough. At least France is trying to push for some digital tax for internet services.
parasubvert 6y ago
If you read the subtext of the other Epic v. Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google. That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. Mobile operators alone will balk at that. This is a fever dream from a new generation of publishers and developers that have to learn how this worked in the past: the market evolved, the old platforms withered or became irrelevant. Consent decrees don’t fix things, at best they add a counterweight on the scale. See: Microsoft, still making money hand over fist due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.
- akira2501 6y ago
  > That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. It's a little disconcerting to me that you would see allowing me to install whatever software I want on a device I fully own as a "Libertarian wild west." > Mobile operators alone will balk at that. Why? Don't fixed-location ISPs have the same issue? > the market evolved I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting. > due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about. They were sued for this. The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    The libertarian argument is a fever dream. There will be no wild west. If you're in India, you will be using the Indian government approved service. In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. In Africa, you will be using ECOWAS, EAC, or SADC approved services. In Brazil, you will be using.. well, you get the idea. Material point being, none of these services will be made by developers outside of those regions. There will be no wild west, what's forming up is very much the opposite of the wild west. It is governmental control with radical reach. Worse, it's forming up to be balkanized governmental control with radical reach.
airocker 6y ago
Privacy and Freedom are the same thing. If you dont have privacy, you cannot do anything as a group or individual that goes against anyone powerful. Freedom can also be thought of as sovereignty. I think if any government including USA has to be sovereign, it has to take privacy of citizens in its own hands. Democratic countries have to devise ways that this data cannot be used to influence elections. Otherwise, Keep in mind Google is no democracy. This data cannot be better off with a corporation because they maintain their database security better.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >If you dont have privacy, you cannot do anything as a group or individual that goes against anyone powerful. Freedom can also be thought of as sovereignty. Seems like a pretty one-sided American cowboy version of freedom. More accurate take I think is that privacy is often a tool of the powerful stopping collective action of citizens. Finance, taxes, and payment compensation are a pretty trivial example. The rich and powerful love their financial privacy, ordinary citizens gain little from it. Wage earners who benefit from their status love that they don't have to share their income with coworkers who may be discriminated against. I think the opposite is true. It's not privacy but transparency that is required if groups are supposed to be able to take action against the powerful.
  - airocker 6y ago
    can you build a company if you were required to make all your future plans transparent to all competitors? Transparency and Privacy both have their place. Everyone should have privacy of information but the rules of privacy should be open to everyone.
amelius 6y ago
Perhaps this will force Google and Apple to come with alternatives without the downsides you mention?
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  This is the downside to involving regulation in a technological space. Government intervention isn't a technological problem and doesn't admit technological solutions. The government can ban any alternative or workaround you can imagine in specific or in general, and moreover can ban the act itself of working on alternatives and workarounds.
accurrent 6y ago
Fact of the matter is there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics. The scary thing about a BJP lead authoritarian regime is that unlike the CCP, BJP is made of a bunch of idiots. CCP is authoritarian, but they have made sure every Chinese has food on the table, a roof on their head and one can live an honest life in China without having to be corrupt. Crime rates in China are fairly low and one can walk on the street in the middle of the night without living in fear of lynching or raping. This is not true of India. Even doing simple things requires you to have connections or pay bribes. Additionally, CCP actually thinks through its policies whereas BJP rolls a policy out and then does a 180 degree turn. Just look at the COVID-19 epidemic. China actually managed to end it because it was authoritarian (even if you don't believe the CCP's numbers you cannot deny that they have managed the situation far better than a lot of other governments). BJP had the opportunity to do so but somewhere along the way decided that they could just follow Trump.
- danbolt 6y ago
  > Fact of the matter is there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics. Just curious, who decides what's politics and what isn't in China?
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  The fact that the CCP are competent authoritarians and the BJP are incompetent semi-authoritarians isn't really in dispute. But the claim that there's nothing scary about living in China if you're not "involved in politics" (whatever that means) is completely absurd.
  - accurrent 6y ago
    I lived there, I've also lived in India. I hate to put it this way but for practical reasons it is far safer to live in China than in India. CCP also takes the pains to make sure Children are not out on the street begging. I could go out at midnight without worrying about being lynched - to me this is a more fundamental freedom than freedom of political expression. Believe it or not China does allow their authorities to be criticized. If I wrote this comment online in China, I would not actually be censored. Yes there are topics that are considered taboo. But such topics are fairly limited.

tomcat27 6y ago

authoritarianism is when a ex judicial company has so strong influence over regulations and those adjudicated arbitrarily and in-transparent and the effected party couldn't do a damn thing about it.. while it's not the best solution, there is merit to it. one of the role of governance could be to help setup an environment for healthy competition. Well it took decades of work at NASA before one private player like space x created momentum outside government.

bilbo0s 6y ago

I agree with you, the worst is about to happen worldwide. The Indians clearly want more control. The Chinese obviously are never going to relinquish any control. Even the South Americans and especially the Africans are starting to look at regionally fenced mobile and internet services as a method of both more control over social media and growing their economies. (As well as providing jobs for their youth.) I think the saying was something like freedom dies to thunderous applause.

phatfish 6y ago
I'm not happy with governments taking such an active role. Ideally they help home-grown alternatives and push out American/Chinese corporations to give them space. That is probably too little too late at this point though. Google, Facebook, Apple et al. have shown they will not stop until they dominate digital markets worldwide. Aggressive intervention by governments is the only way for them to wrestle back control. At least with the "Indian Government App Store" there is no smoke and mirrors with regards to who has access to the data. Tech companies hand over whatever governments ask for anyway.
- powerapple 6y ago
  All we need is a proper way to tax these companies. It is totally okay that Google or Facebook is doing the work, the people can tax them and get a fair cut from the profit.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    Yes you are right, taxing global companies effectively would help greatly. There seems to be no will (in the West at least) to do anything about it though. Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers. Maybe there does need to be the global coordinated effort on tax reform that is the typical excuse for why nothing is ever changed. I can see why punitive action against foreign corporations could be seen as the easier option.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers. I think that's unfortunately true, but there must be a point of diminishing returns. Close enough loopholes (intentional loopholes or otherwise) and companies end up spending more money on tax lawyers than the value of the actual tax break. Even if some companies are able to use some loopholes, closing many of them still means more tax revenue for states. We don't need to get to a "perfect" state here.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    "All we need" == an entire restructuring of every major country's government from the ground up. Not that it would work anyways...
    - powerapple 6y ago
      Fair enough. At least France is trying to push for some digital tax for internet services.

parasubvert 6y ago

If you read the subtext of the other Epic v. Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google. That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. Mobile operators alone will balk at that. This is a fever dream from a new generation of publishers and developers that have to learn how this worked in the past: the market evolved, the old platforms withered or became irrelevant. Consent decrees don’t fix things, at best they add a counterweight on the scale. See: Microsoft, still making money hand over fist due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.

akira2501 6y ago
> That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. It's a little disconcerting to me that you would see allowing me to install whatever software I want on a device I fully own as a "Libertarian wild west." > Mobile operators alone will balk at that. Why? Don't fixed-location ISPs have the same issue? > the market evolved I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting. > due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about. They were sued for this. The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  The libertarian argument is a fever dream. There will be no wild west. If you're in India, you will be using the Indian government approved service. In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. In Africa, you will be using ECOWAS, EAC, or SADC approved services. In Brazil, you will be using.. well, you get the idea. Material point being, none of these services will be made by developers outside of those regions. There will be no wild west, what's forming up is very much the opposite of the wild west. It is governmental control with radical reach. Worse, it's forming up to be balkanized governmental control with radical reach.

airocker 6y ago

Privacy and Freedom are the same thing. If you dont have privacy, you cannot do anything as a group or individual that goes against anyone powerful. Freedom can also be thought of as sovereignty. I think if any government including USA has to be sovereign, it has to take privacy of citizens in its own hands. Democratic countries have to devise ways that this data cannot be used to influence elections. Otherwise, Keep in mind Google is no democracy. This data cannot be better off with a corporation because they maintain their database security better.

Barrin92 6y ago
>If you dont have privacy, you cannot do anything as a group or individual that goes against anyone powerful. Freedom can also be thought of as sovereignty. Seems like a pretty one-sided American cowboy version of freedom. More accurate take I think is that privacy is often a tool of the powerful stopping collective action of citizens. Finance, taxes, and payment compensation are a pretty trivial example. The rich and powerful love their financial privacy, ordinary citizens gain little from it. Wage earners who benefit from their status love that they don't have to share their income with coworkers who may be discriminated against. I think the opposite is true. It's not privacy but transparency that is required if groups are supposed to be able to take action against the powerful.
- airocker 6y ago
  can you build a company if you were required to make all your future plans transparent to all competitors? Transparency and Privacy both have their place. Everyone should have privacy of information but the rules of privacy should be open to everyone.

amelius 6y ago

Perhaps this will force Google and Apple to come with alternatives without the downsides you mention?

dodobirdlord 6y ago
This is the downside to involving regulation in a technological space. Government intervention isn't a technological problem and doesn't admit technological solutions. The government can ban any alternative or workaround you can imagine in specific or in general, and moreover can ban the act itself of working on alternatives and workarounds.

accurrent 6y ago

Fact of the matter is there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics. The scary thing about a BJP lead authoritarian regime is that unlike the CCP, BJP is made of a bunch of idiots. CCP is authoritarian, but they have made sure every Chinese has food on the table, a roof on their head and one can live an honest life in China without having to be corrupt. Crime rates in China are fairly low and one can walk on the street in the middle of the night without living in fear of lynching or raping. This is not true of India. Even doing simple things requires you to have connections or pay bribes. Additionally, CCP actually thinks through its policies whereas BJP rolls a policy out and then does a 180 degree turn. Just look at the COVID-19 epidemic. China actually managed to end it because it was authoritarian (even if you don't believe the CCP's numbers you cannot deny that they have managed the situation far better than a lot of other governments). BJP had the opportunity to do so but somewhere along the way decided that they could just follow Trump.

danbolt 6y ago
> Fact of the matter is there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics. Just curious, who decides what's politics and what isn't in China?
dodobirdlord 6y ago
The fact that the CCP are competent authoritarians and the BJP are incompetent semi-authoritarians isn't really in dispute. But the claim that there's nothing scary about living in China if you're not "involved in politics" (whatever that means) is completely absurd.
- accurrent 6y ago
  I lived there, I've also lived in India. I hate to put it this way but for practical reasons it is far safer to live in China than in India. CCP also takes the pains to make sure Children are not out on the street begging. I could go out at midnight without worrying about being lynched - to me this is a more fundamental freedom than freedom of political expression. Believe it or not China does allow their authorities to be criticized. If I wrote this comment online in China, I would not actually be censored. Yes there are topics that are considered taboo. But such topics are fairly limited.