5 ms·

Why would you want your government to mandate how technology works? Sounds like a recipe for disaster and the perfect way to stifle innovation

kroltan 6y ago
Is it not reasonable to demand interoperability for one of the main methods of communication in the entire world? Forcing a specific standard is problematic, but it would be reasonable to ask any communication service to provide a fully documented and public API with features and access equal to the features and access of the official application. Random nerds make integrations to whatever application/protocol is in vogue, business still gets to have complete freedom in where their take their API and thus their product. --- I would even go as far as to say that every web-service should be machine-consumable in that fashion, but that's beyond the point.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  My problem is not demanding it, as users, it's enforcing it with laws. If users don't want that, they should be free not to have that.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    The problem is that the users who couldn't care less drive the decision.
matthew_wilson 6y ago
“One System — One Policy — Universal Service” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment?wprov=sft... "the promise of mail delivery [helped] grow the nation and economy instead of serving only existing communities." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Act?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Act?wprov=sfti1
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I think it's a different problem - mail delivery requires a series of entities interacting with each others (think about a network of mailmen). Also, private mail exists and it's definitely useful. Digital messages are usually built on top of the internet (which would have similar problems) and every service can be used across the entire network.
  - Drdrdrq 6y ago
    Really? So I can reach my cousin via Signal, even though he is on WhatsApp?
zerox7felf 6y ago
Because innovative != ethical! Hopefully it would stifle innovation that depends on tracking users and platform lock-in. I think there would certainly be space for innovation beyond that, possibly with even better conditions for competition as it would be easier for users to move between platforms.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  What if as a user I'm happy to get a free service and be tracked?
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    Governments exist in large part to solve problems of the form "all individuals are incentivised to take actions which, when universally taken, are detrimental to the commons".
    - Leherenn 6y ago
      I am not sure it is a problem for most people though, if anything I believe most people would not like the alternative. If the choice is between being tracked, which results in many things being free (as in beer) with otherwise almost no practical visible consequences for most people (different ads?), or having to pay for each and every service but no tracking, I think you would face a huge backlash if you forced the latter. A solution could be to have free access if you accept tracking and pay otherwise, but I believe this is illegal under GDPR.
zvr 6y ago
Because deployment of technology is a policy decision. And policies are what governments are about.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
They probably shouldn't mandate "how technology works". I certainly wouldn't vote for that. However, I think that public services (paid for by taxes) should be open and accessible. That is, the government should mandate certain properties ("it should be open") and not certain implementations ("it should use this specific protocol / app"). Another commenter gave the example of Brazil schools sending parents important information via WhatsApp. Now I'm not against the schools doing that if it's one of multiple options and if the parents have an actual choice. I think the government should mandate that at least one open choice be made available, without necessarily detailing said choice. In my view this wouldn't stifle innovation. If you come up with some new communication app that's better than anything else, if it's open and many people pick it up, there's no reason for the schools not to use it instead of the older / inferior option. This would also allow schools to choose one among several open solutions according to their particular needs.
Dig1t 6y ago
I generally agree with this sentiment, but sometimes I think mandating cooperation between walled gardens is the only way to help consumers. Take healthcare for example: Epic, Cerner, Athena, etc all have NO incentive to build any interoperability into their products. It greatly benefits them to create walled gardens and wall-off hospitals and healthcare institutions from other institutions that use their competitors' software. It took Congress to mandate open standards and to spell out that healthcare institutions must offer a public APIs to patients. We are only now starting to be able to download health records from hospitals as a result of this despite it being technically possible for decades. In fact there are still many patients that are required to request stacks of DVDs containing their health records, and this is their only option. Obviously this is more a commentary on how shitty healthcare in the US can be, but also a good example IMO of how sometimes government intervention in technical standards requirements can greatly benefit consumers.
arpyzo 6y ago
Let's rewrite this to illustrate a point: Why would you want a small, self-interested, unaccountable group of private investors to mandate how technology works? Sounds like a recipe for disaster and the perfect way to stifle innovation Depending on the particulars of your government, perhaps it looks more appealing now.
rglullis 6y ago
Who do you think that allocates frequency spectrum? Imagine if every mobile phone company wanted to lock its users by operating on a specific frequency. Imagine if Hollywood or TV studios had any saying over Digital TV standards. Streaming would never exist and we would be used to a "pay-per-view" model forever, with mandatory and built-in DRM. This is not about enforcing how technology works. It just ensuring that no monopoly can occur. Common standards don't stifle innovation, closed ones do.
- ruiseal 6y ago
  We would have been much worse off if governments, or governmental bodies like the UN, allocated IP addresses rather than a private anarcho-like entity.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    How does allocation of IP addresses related to pushing for interoperability of communication protocols? If your analogy was something about governmental bodies was worse than private entities when pushing for a standard network standard, then you would have a point. But unless I am deeply wrong, TCP/IP, GSM, LTE, DVB, even FM radio and PAL were standards that only became dominant after governmental bodies sanctioned as standards and no one misses AppleTalk or Novell's IDP because of "government meddling". Even still, the argument is not for killing private protocols or stopping private companies to innovate and develop new technologies. It's "just" that these innovations should be made on top of open standards instead of displacing them. Don't forget that Google Talk and even Facebook's messenger started on top of XMPP. They closed purely for business reasons, not technical ones. Had the FCC told them "do whatever you want with your network and your client, but anyone speaking XMPP should be able to communicate with your users", we wouldn't be in this mess.
IanCal 6y ago
Forcing interoperability means the apps need to actually compete with each other by being better - rather than just by being the biggest incumbent. Restrictions and requirements can boost innovation.
lmm 6y ago
Market competition doesn't work for natural monopolies, and network effects mean messaging is one of those. Governments should regulate as necessary to ensure free markets for competition, which means aggressive antitrust enforcement and giving natural monopolies the choice between opening up enough to allow competition, or nationalisation.

kroltan 6y ago

Is it not reasonable to demand interoperability for one of the main methods of communication in the entire world? Forcing a specific standard is problematic, but it would be reasonable to ask any communication service to provide a fully documented and public API with features and access equal to the features and access of the official application. Random nerds make integrations to whatever application/protocol is in vogue, business still gets to have complete freedom in where their take their API and thus their product. --- I would even go as far as to say that every web-service should be machine-consumable in that fashion, but that's beyond the point.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
My problem is not demanding it, as users, it's enforcing it with laws. If users don't want that, they should be free not to have that.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  The problem is that the users who couldn't care less drive the decision.

matthew_wilson 6y ago

“One System — One Policy — Universal Service” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment?wprov=sft... "the promise of mail delivery [helped] grow the nation and economy instead of serving only existing communities." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Act?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Act?wprov=sfti1

jokethrowaway 6y ago
I think it's a different problem - mail delivery requires a series of entities interacting with each others (think about a network of mailmen). Also, private mail exists and it's definitely useful. Digital messages are usually built on top of the internet (which would have similar problems) and every service can be used across the entire network.
- Drdrdrq 6y ago
  Really? So I can reach my cousin via Signal, even though he is on WhatsApp?

zerox7felf 6y ago

Because innovative != ethical! Hopefully it would stifle innovation that depends on tracking users and platform lock-in. I think there would certainly be space for innovation beyond that, possibly with even better conditions for competition as it would be easier for users to move between platforms.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
What if as a user I'm happy to get a free service and be tracked?
- Smaug123 6y ago
  Governments exist in large part to solve problems of the form "all individuals are incentivised to take actions which, when universally taken, are detrimental to the commons".
  - Leherenn 6y ago
    I am not sure it is a problem for most people though, if anything I believe most people would not like the alternative. If the choice is between being tracked, which results in many things being free (as in beer) with otherwise almost no practical visible consequences for most people (different ads?), or having to pay for each and every service but no tracking, I think you would face a huge backlash if you forced the latter. A solution could be to have free access if you accept tracking and pay otherwise, but I believe this is illegal under GDPR.

zvr 6y ago

Because deployment of technology is a policy decision. And policies are what governments are about.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

They probably shouldn't mandate "how technology works". I certainly wouldn't vote for that. However, I think that public services (paid for by taxes) should be open and accessible. That is, the government should mandate certain properties ("it should be open") and not certain implementations ("it should use this specific protocol / app"). Another commenter gave the example of Brazil schools sending parents important information via WhatsApp. Now I'm not against the schools doing that if it's one of multiple options and if the parents have an actual choice. I think the government should mandate that at least one open choice be made available, without necessarily detailing said choice. In my view this wouldn't stifle innovation. If you come up with some new communication app that's better than anything else, if it's open and many people pick it up, there's no reason for the schools not to use it instead of the older / inferior option. This would also allow schools to choose one among several open solutions according to their particular needs.

Dig1t 6y ago

I generally agree with this sentiment, but sometimes I think mandating cooperation between walled gardens is the only way to help consumers. Take healthcare for example: Epic, Cerner, Athena, etc all have NO incentive to build any interoperability into their products. It greatly benefits them to create walled gardens and wall-off hospitals and healthcare institutions from other institutions that use their competitors' software. It took Congress to mandate open standards and to spell out that healthcare institutions must offer a public APIs to patients. We are only now starting to be able to download health records from hospitals as a result of this despite it being technically possible for decades. In fact there are still many patients that are required to request stacks of DVDs containing their health records, and this is their only option. Obviously this is more a commentary on how shitty healthcare in the US can be, but also a good example IMO of how sometimes government intervention in technical standards requirements can greatly benefit consumers.

arpyzo 6y ago

Let's rewrite this to illustrate a point: Why would you want a small, self-interested, unaccountable group of private investors to mandate how technology works? Sounds like a recipe for disaster and the perfect way to stifle innovation Depending on the particulars of your government, perhaps it looks more appealing now.

rglullis 6y ago

Who do you think that allocates frequency spectrum? Imagine if every mobile phone company wanted to lock its users by operating on a specific frequency. Imagine if Hollywood or TV studios had any saying over Digital TV standards. Streaming would never exist and we would be used to a "pay-per-view" model forever, with mandatory and built-in DRM. This is not about enforcing how technology works. It just ensuring that no monopoly can occur. Common standards don't stifle innovation, closed ones do.

ruiseal 6y ago
We would have been much worse off if governments, or governmental bodies like the UN, allocated IP addresses rather than a private anarcho-like entity.
- rglullis 6y ago
  How does allocation of IP addresses related to pushing for interoperability of communication protocols? If your analogy was something about governmental bodies was worse than private entities when pushing for a standard network standard, then you would have a point. But unless I am deeply wrong, TCP/IP, GSM, LTE, DVB, even FM radio and PAL were standards that only became dominant after governmental bodies sanctioned as standards and no one misses AppleTalk or Novell's IDP because of "government meddling". Even still, the argument is not for killing private protocols or stopping private companies to innovate and develop new technologies. It's "just" that these innovations should be made on top of open standards instead of displacing them. Don't forget that Google Talk and even Facebook's messenger started on top of XMPP. They closed purely for business reasons, not technical ones. Had the FCC told them "do whatever you want with your network and your client, but anyone speaking XMPP should be able to communicate with your users", we wouldn't be in this mess.

IanCal 6y ago

Forcing interoperability means the apps need to actually compete with each other by being better - rather than just by being the biggest incumbent. Restrictions and requirements can boost innovation.

lmm 6y ago

Market competition doesn't work for natural monopolies, and network effects mean messaging is one of those. Governments should regulate as necessary to ensure free markets for competition, which means aggressive antitrust enforcement and giving natural monopolies the choice between opening up enough to allow competition, or nationalisation.