3 ms·

There's a number of quiet warnings in my head that this is too overbroad. Don't get me wrong, I think something like this should happen 100%. But this seems t

There's a number of quiet warnings in my head that this is too overbroad. Don't get me wrong, I think something like this should happen 100%. But this seems to cast too wide a net. What about my bank? They have >100M users, and with an app/service portal, they'll be required to be "interoperable". I don't want my bank or my bank info to be interoperable. I also don't want my bank to have an interoperability interface; as an internet plumber, I fully realize the first thing you need to have a blockage is a pipe with something in it. What about content delivery? Will I be able to play music/movies hosted by my subscription provider through a 3rd party? This calls into question some difficult problems around licensing that may be impossible to satisfy via existing, established contracts; don't paint a content provider into a corner of guaranteed noncompliance. Where is the definition of "interoperability"? This will be a field day for an endless bevy of corporate lawyers to say "Oh XYZ isn't a service with users. It's available to users of ABC service, which is fully compliant with the interoperability rules as required by blah blah." I applaud the effort and think this is a priceless next step in helping define where we should go next, but I'm only hearing possibility and daydreams, not concrete implementation.

munfred 6y ago
If you look at section 2 of bill S.2658[0], you will see that the bill only applies to "Large Communications Platform Providers". You bank is not that. Spotify and Netflix are not that. The bill doesn't apply to them. And note that the current threshold is 100M monthly active users in the United States*. A third of the population using the communications platform monthly. Relevant passage of section 2: (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. --- Original bill text: [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2658/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/265...
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > (A) generates income, directly or indirectly, from the collection, processing, sale, or sharing of user data; and OK, this is substantially better than any other proposal I've seen. It means that any platform that doesn't make money off of user data (e.g. one that makes money in some more ethical way) is exempt.
  - tzs 6y ago
    That seems overly broad. The whole point of a communications service from the user's point of view is to process user data, namely the messages that the user sends or receives via that service.
eitland 6y ago
> What about my bank? They have >100M users, and with an app/service portal, they'll be required to be "interoperable". Banks around here (Norway) are required to provide API access because of Eu regulations (yeay EU, sometimes you are a great idea even if I'm happy that we aren't a member) and I can already see accounts from other banks I have used before. > I also don't want my bank to have an interoperability interface; as an internet plumber, I fully realize the first thing you need to have a blockage is a pipe with something in it. Couldn't this be used as an argument against every standardization effort?
betamaxthetape 6y ago
> What about my bank? They have >100M users, and with an app/service portal, they'll be required to be "interoperable". I don't want my bank or my bank info to be interoperable. Here in the UK we have something like that, called Open Banking[1]. IMHO the most noticeable benefit to consumers is that many of apps from the UKs largest banking providers now allow you to view your accounts from all your banks through their app (traditionally you could only view accounts you held with that bank). I believe that some budgeting / spending-tracking apps also take advantage of it to amalgamate information from all of your accounts. [1] https://www.openbanking.org.uk/ https://www.openbanking.org.uk/
pdonis 6y ago
> What about my bank? Your bank doesn't generate income by collecting, processing, selling, or sharing your data.
Mindwipe 6y ago
Banks are already required to do this in Europe.

munfred 6y ago

If you look at section 2 of bill S.2658[0], you will see that the bill only applies to "Large Communications Platform Providers". You bank is not that. Spotify and Netflix are not that. The bill doesn't apply to them. And note that the current threshold is 100M monthly active users in the United States*. A third of the population using the communications platform monthly. Relevant passage of section 2: (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. --- Original bill text: [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2658/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/265...

JoshTriplett 6y ago
> (A) generates income, directly or indirectly, from the collection, processing, sale, or sharing of user data; and OK, this is substantially better than any other proposal I've seen. It means that any platform that doesn't make money off of user data (e.g. one that makes money in some more ethical way) is exempt.
- tzs 6y ago
  That seems overly broad. The whole point of a communications service from the user's point of view is to process user data, namely the messages that the user sends or receives via that service.

eitland 6y ago

> What about my bank? They have >100M users, and with an app/service portal, they'll be required to be "interoperable". Banks around here (Norway) are required to provide API access because of Eu regulations (yeay EU, sometimes you are a great idea even if I'm happy that we aren't a member) and I can already see accounts from other banks I have used before. > I also don't want my bank to have an interoperability interface; as an internet plumber, I fully realize the first thing you need to have a blockage is a pipe with something in it. Couldn't this be used as an argument against every standardization effort?

betamaxthetape 6y ago

> What about my bank? They have >100M users, and with an app/service portal, they'll be required to be "interoperable". I don't want my bank or my bank info to be interoperable. Here in the UK we have something like that, called Open Banking[1]. IMHO the most noticeable benefit to consumers is that many of apps from the UKs largest banking providers now allow you to view your accounts from all your banks through their app (traditionally you could only view accounts you held with that bank). I believe that some budgeting / spending-tracking apps also take advantage of it to amalgamate information from all of your accounts. [1] https://www.openbanking.org.uk/ https://www.openbanking.org.uk/

pdonis 6y ago

> What about my bank? Your bank doesn't generate income by collecting, processing, selling, or sharing your data.

Mindwipe 6y ago

Banks are already required to do this in Europe.