5 ms·

Here is the full text of the ACCESS Act of 2019 bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2658/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con

Here is the full text of the ACCESS Act of 2019 bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2658/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/265... I highly recommend that everyone reads it - it is extremely short, well written, and probably the single most important piece of legislation to HN folks in the past decade. As the bill is right now, it require communications platforms with 100M monthly active users in the US to make their services interoperable with other platforms. The bill presumes that platforms using open protocols already (like email) are fine. Facebook and it’s messenger platform is likely to be the only one meeting the threshold. I'm not American, but if you are and you care, I would suggest you to call your representative and explain why you support (or not) this bill. Remember that as it goes through congress, it can, and most likely will, be heavily edited or gutted to fit the many competing interests whispering in their ears. If you think the bill is good as is, tell them that! Personally, I think the bill is perfect, except for the 100M user threshold to start demand compatibility, which I think should be lowered to 10M.

camgunz 6y ago
This bill is pretty smart (agreed about the limit though, I'd even put it at 1M MAU). Could it be we're finally at a point where Congress is listening to competent tech lobbying instead of just megacorp media/tech companies?
- munfred 6y ago
  I'm every bit as surprised as you. I don't think it's a significant fraction of congress though, I think it's specifically senator Mark Warner. He did work with tech before, and my take is that he knows what he is talking about and was waiting for a good political moment to present such unpalatable proposals (unpalatable to the tech companies, that is). See his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner#Early_life,_education,_and_business_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner#Early_life,_educat... Last year he (meaning, most likely his staff under his supervision) put out a "whitepaper" outlining 20 possible proposals to regulate social media and tech companies. Notably, 4 of the things discussed were introduced as bills in one form or another. I posted about them last year, see the discussion and links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21389809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21389809
vsskanth 6y ago
Can interoperability and data portability still be legislatively mandated if APIs were ruled copyrightable in the Supreme Court (Oracle vs Google) ? Can monopolies go further and claim their user graph and user data is also under copyright ?
- chabad360 6y ago
  Sure, the bill would need to include a clause that specifies that the API must not be copyrighted, or something to that effect.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Sure, the bill would need to include a clause that specifies that the API must not be copyrighted, or something to that effect. I don't believe that would be an issue, since Federal government works are not entitled to copyright and are in the public domain[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...
    - p_l 6y ago
      But the interoperability API would be created by private entities, not Federal government works, and AFAIK even federal-but-subcontracted work is copyrightable.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >But the interoperability API would be created by private entities, That's true. I was wrong. However, the interoperability specs will be developed by NIST as specified in Section 6(c): "(c) Technical standards.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall develop and publish model technical standards by which to make interoperable popular classes of communications or information services, including— (1) online messaging; (2) multimedia sharing; and (3) social networking." Those standards certainly can't be copyrighted, and as such, it's still not really an issue.
dangus 6y ago
> Facebook and it’s messenger platform is likely to be the only one meeting the threshold. And iMessage! There should absolutely be a requirement to have it interoperate with other platforms.
- jeethsuresh 6y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think the act as written would apply to iMessage. Seems like section 4e: > Exemption for certain services.—The obligations under this section shall not apply to a product or service by which a large communications platform provider does not generate any income or other compensation, directly or indirectly, from collecting, using, or sharing user data. would cut iMessage (and any other Apple service) out. I guess the argument could be made that Apple indirectly generates income from collecting data and making it available across their devices as a form of vendor lock-in, but that's shaky.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    iMessage is end-to-end encrypted. It is unlikely that Apple collects any personal data from it -- at most, they might be collecting some aggregate data, like the frequency with which various features are used.
    - crossroadsguy 6y ago
      > iMessage is end-to-end encrypted That's what Apple says. I don't think it's ever been independently audited at all; and of course to say source code is not available for the public.
  - duhast 6y ago
    Cost of iMessage (software & service) is included in the price of iPhone/Mac. This is similar to MacOS/iOS - both are free to use but only on Apple hardware.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  As far as the user is concerned, imessage does mostly operate with another "open" platform, SMS. Certain features don't work for apple users texting others, but core functionality is intact. This is also because apple innovated by creating those features while retaining SMS interoperability, and RCS didn't exist at the time.
jkarneges 6y ago
> the bill is perfect, except for the 100M user threshold to start demand compatibility, which I think should be lowered to 10M I kinda like the high number, as it means the spirit is to prevent monopolies, which is one of the most compelling reasons for regulations to exist. Make the number too low, and it would invite criticism from people about regulations being overbearing. I don't know if that number is 100M, 10M, or 1M, but just something to be mindful about. My sense is that if Facebook is legally forced to interop, then all other smaller/future players will voluntarily interop anyway.
- xg15 6y ago
  Different strokes for different folks as they say, but I don't think "preventing monopolies" has to be the only motivation of this bill. I think interopability (and as a consequence, greatly improved customer choice and competition) is a value in its own right.
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    I am not too sure you can have that cake AND eat it (historical datapoints suggest otherwise I think)
    - xg15 6y ago
      Please explain.
      - laser 6y ago
        The anti-monopoly benefits of interoperability can be offset by the regulatory capture of forced interoperability if companies too small are subject to such rules, placing them at a disadvantage relative to largest players and increasing the likelihood that the status quo remains in place. That's the "Can't have your cake and eat it too" that's being referred to above I think—in other words, if you regulate the second-tier like the first-tier, the second-tier will never have a chance at becoming the first tier.
goBackwards00 6y ago
I don’t support this as, excepting in medical and large infra where common languages improve important outcomes, API interoperability of consumer bullshit is an arbitrary goal. We keep legislating pointless high level goals. I’d rather legislate high level goals like M4A, free education. I refuse to put political agency into logistical normalization for big business who can afford to do it themselves. And I don’t believe forcing social norms on humans is acceptable in general. Indeed, I think it’s a truism our biology will always resist. This is bill is too narrowly scoped to web technologists concerns. After 20+ years in software, I’ve learned technologists are no more important to any big picture as anyone else. Air travel and medical science did this on their own. There’s no reason private enterprise of dubious value to society need governments mandates for trading gifs. It’s electrons in a circuit already. There’s your generic interface. Given recent economic success and shallow human egos, software people have slid into a dopamine fueled circular mirage, decoupled from reality.
webmaven 6y ago
> Facebook and it’s messenger platform is likely to be the only one meeting the threshold. I would be surprised if none of Google's chat services exceeds 100M MAU, even if only users in the USA are being counted.
- thekyle 6y ago
  I don't think most people could even name a Google communication service other than GMail. Even if they could it might be one that no longer exists.
tzs 6y ago
It is not at all clear to me from the bill text just what "interoperability" actually means.
- amelius 6y ago
  I think there are a lot of things that the bill is not clear about, and in fact I don't think it would live up to any legal standards in its current form (IANAL). It is very easy to read though.
jameshart 6y ago
How does this legislation define 'communications platform' in a way that doesn't risk capturing online games? I have no idea what it would mean to force Fortnite to be interoperable with other platforms...
- munfred 6y ago
  If you open the text and look at section 2 of bill S.2658, you will see the definition of "Large Communications Platform Providers": (7) LARGE COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM.—The term “large communications platform” means a product or service provided by a communications provider that— (A) generates income, directly or indirectly, from the collection, processing, sale, or sharing of user data; and (B) has more than 100,000,000 monthly active users in the United States.
- cdirkx 6y ago
  Why not? I have loads of different accounts from gaming services with friend lists and chat: Steam, Epic Games Store, Blizzard's Batte.net, etc. It would be nice if those were interoperable.

camgunz 6y ago

This bill is pretty smart (agreed about the limit though, I'd even put it at 1M MAU). Could it be we're finally at a point where Congress is listening to competent tech lobbying instead of just megacorp media/tech companies?

munfred 6y ago
I'm every bit as surprised as you. I don't think it's a significant fraction of congress though, I think it's specifically senator Mark Warner. He did work with tech before, and my take is that he knows what he is talking about and was waiting for a good political moment to present such unpalatable proposals (unpalatable to the tech companies, that is). See his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner#Early_life,_education,_and_business_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner#Early_life,_educat... Last year he (meaning, most likely his staff under his supervision) put out a "whitepaper" outlining 20 possible proposals to regulate social media and tech companies. Notably, 4 of the things discussed were introduced as bills in one form or another. I posted about them last year, see the discussion and links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21389809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21389809

vsskanth 6y ago

Can interoperability and data portability still be legislatively mandated if APIs were ruled copyrightable in the Supreme Court (Oracle vs Google) ? Can monopolies go further and claim their user graph and user data is also under copyright ?

chabad360 6y ago
Sure, the bill would need to include a clause that specifies that the API must not be copyrighted, or something to that effect.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Sure, the bill would need to include a clause that specifies that the API must not be copyrighted, or something to that effect. I don't believe that would be an issue, since Federal government works are not entitled to copyright and are in the public domain[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...
  - p_l 6y ago
    But the interoperability API would be created by private entities, not Federal government works, and AFAIK even federal-but-subcontracted work is copyrightable.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >But the interoperability API would be created by private entities, That's true. I was wrong. However, the interoperability specs will be developed by NIST as specified in Section 6(c): "(c) Technical standards.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall develop and publish model technical standards by which to make interoperable popular classes of communications or information services, including— (1) online messaging; (2) multimedia sharing; and (3) social networking." Those standards certainly can't be copyrighted, and as such, it's still not really an issue.

dangus 6y ago

> Facebook and it’s messenger platform is likely to be the only one meeting the threshold. And iMessage! There should absolutely be a requirement to have it interoperate with other platforms.

jeethsuresh 6y ago
Unfortunately I don't think the act as written would apply to iMessage. Seems like section 4e: > Exemption for certain services.—The obligations under this section shall not apply to a product or service by which a large communications platform provider does not generate any income or other compensation, directly or indirectly, from collecting, using, or sharing user data. would cut iMessage (and any other Apple service) out. I guess the argument could be made that Apple indirectly generates income from collecting data and making it available across their devices as a form of vendor lock-in, but that's shaky.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  iMessage is end-to-end encrypted. It is unlikely that Apple collects any personal data from it -- at most, they might be collecting some aggregate data, like the frequency with which various features are used.
  - crossroadsguy 6y ago
    > iMessage is end-to-end encrypted That's what Apple says. I don't think it's ever been independently audited at all; and of course to say source code is not available for the public.
- duhast 6y ago
  Cost of iMessage (software & service) is included in the price of iPhone/Mac. This is similar to MacOS/iOS - both are free to use but only on Apple hardware.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
As far as the user is concerned, imessage does mostly operate with another "open" platform, SMS. Certain features don't work for apple users texting others, but core functionality is intact. This is also because apple innovated by creating those features while retaining SMS interoperability, and RCS didn't exist at the time.

jkarneges 6y ago

> the bill is perfect, except for the 100M user threshold to start demand compatibility, which I think should be lowered to 10M I kinda like the high number, as it means the spirit is to prevent monopolies, which is one of the most compelling reasons for regulations to exist. Make the number too low, and it would invite criticism from people about regulations being overbearing. I don't know if that number is 100M, 10M, or 1M, but just something to be mindful about. My sense is that if Facebook is legally forced to interop, then all other smaller/future players will voluntarily interop anyway.

xg15 6y ago
Different strokes for different folks as they say, but I don't think "preventing monopolies" has to be the only motivation of this bill. I think interopability (and as a consequence, greatly improved customer choice and competition) is a value in its own right.
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  I am not too sure you can have that cake AND eat it (historical datapoints suggest otherwise I think)
  - xg15 6y ago
    Please explain.
    - laser 6y ago
      The anti-monopoly benefits of interoperability can be offset by the regulatory capture of forced interoperability if companies too small are subject to such rules, placing them at a disadvantage relative to largest players and increasing the likelihood that the status quo remains in place. That's the "Can't have your cake and eat it too" that's being referred to above I think—in other words, if you regulate the second-tier like the first-tier, the second-tier will never have a chance at becoming the first tier.

goBackwards00 6y ago

I don’t support this as, excepting in medical and large infra where common languages improve important outcomes, API interoperability of consumer bullshit is an arbitrary goal. We keep legislating pointless high level goals. I’d rather legislate high level goals like M4A, free education. I refuse to put political agency into logistical normalization for big business who can afford to do it themselves. And I don’t believe forcing social norms on humans is acceptable in general. Indeed, I think it’s a truism our biology will always resist. This is bill is too narrowly scoped to web technologists concerns. After 20+ years in software, I’ve learned technologists are no more important to any big picture as anyone else. Air travel and medical science did this on their own. There’s no reason private enterprise of dubious value to society need governments mandates for trading gifs. It’s electrons in a circuit already. There’s your generic interface. Given recent economic success and shallow human egos, software people have slid into a dopamine fueled circular mirage, decoupled from reality.

webmaven 6y ago

> Facebook and it’s messenger platform is likely to be the only one meeting the threshold. I would be surprised if none of Google's chat services exceeds 100M MAU, even if only users in the USA are being counted.

thekyle 6y ago
I don't think most people could even name a Google communication service other than GMail. Even if they could it might be one that no longer exists.

tzs 6y ago

It is not at all clear to me from the bill text just what "interoperability" actually means.

amelius 6y ago
I think there are a lot of things that the bill is not clear about, and in fact I don't think it would live up to any legal standards in its current form (IANAL). It is very easy to read though.

jameshart 6y ago

How does this legislation define 'communications platform' in a way that doesn't risk capturing online games? I have no idea what it would mean to force Fortnite to be interoperable with other platforms...

munfred 6y ago
If you open the text and look at section 2 of bill S.2658, you will see the definition of "Large Communications Platform Providers": (7) LARGE COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM.—The term “large communications platform” means a product or service provided by a communications provider that— (A) generates income, directly or indirectly, from the collection, processing, sale, or sharing of user data; and (B) has more than 100,000,000 monthly active users in the United States.
cdirkx 6y ago
Why not? I have loads of different accounts from gaming services with friend lists and chat: Steam, Epic Games Store, Blizzard's Batte.net, etc. It would be nice if those were interoperable.