4 ms·

> Amazon (et al) are doing is making it so that customers have to use Amazon's software to shop Amazon This is true of almost all online stores and nobody is p

by zepto 6y ago

> Amazon (et al) are doing is making it so that customers have to use Amazon's software to shop Amazon This is true of almost all online stores and nobody is proposing legislation against it, so it’s not at all clear what you are saying. Government mandating APIs seems like a fatally destructive move against software freedom forever.

mindslight 6y ago
I'm proposing it and saying it would be a better remedy than whatever regulatory-capture-ripe "reform" they're proposing is. I actually like house brands of stuff, when compared to the thousands of gensym brands. The problem isn't marketplace companies privileging their own brands - it's with singular companies owning the marketplace to begin with. Humans are creatures of habit, and the way to make it so we aren't in the habit of just buying everything from $Amazon is to replace that with the habit of buying things through non-affiliated aggregators. I'd rather have one familiar UI showing me (Amazon Basics, Zoro Select, HDX, etc), than multiple UIs each showing me the same "competing" gensym brands.
- zepto 6y ago
  Why not just outlaw dark patterns in general as deceptive practices? All this focus on fixing particular companies or government mandating software architecture seems like it just gets the government more and more invovled while not doing anything to prevent the actual abuses.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    It's impossible to formally define dark patterns, especially when trying to except traditional dark patterns (recurring sales, coupons, strategically placed roasting chickens, etc). And so any attempt to do that will necessarily "get the government more and more involved". Either through some administrative body that decides whether a certain thing is a "dark pattern", or through judicial remedies ("Here is your 57 cent media credit because Amazon lied about shipping cutoff times. They admit no wrongdoing but promise to never do it again"). Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software architecture". It's merely just a different form of the website that has a predictable structure. Amazon could even choose whatever structure they want, as long as it is documented and versioned. Both approaches aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm not arguing against the former. I just don't hold out hope for it to create meaningful reform - centralized bodies are just as likely to bless abusive practices.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software architecture". It's merely just a different form of the website that has a predictable structure. That is software architecture.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        That's like calling a bike shed "civil engineering". I don't know what point you're making with the term "software architecture" other than trying to make it sound burdensome.
        zepto 6y ago
        My point is that once you mandate that, then forever all stores must be architected around providing this web API, based on technology assumptions frozen in law. Building a P2P or distributed store, not based on a central website, just as an example, would be illegal. This is just one example of how the future would be encumbered forever based on a 90’s software architecture becoming enshrined in law. The web as it is today is not some endpoint in software evolution. A Government mandated API is literally the government regulating software architecture.
        mindslight 6y ago
        A law would be horribly broken if it said something like "all stores must have a web API". Alternatives of "web stores must have a web API" or "all businesses with a digital UI must have a published API offering the same features" wouldn't succumb to that. That's why I take issue with the word "architecture". If a business has chosen to offer a web storefront, a web API can be supplied right alongside that. There's no need for any "architecture" mandate - the business has chosen the architecture, and the law would mandate accessibility. Also a P2P/distributed store would itself be defined by an open API, making the issue moot.
        zepto 6y ago

by zepto 6y ago

mindslight 6y ago

I'm proposing it and saying it would be a better remedy than whatever regulatory-capture-ripe "reform" they're proposing is. I actually like house brands of stuff, when compared to the thousands of gensym brands. The problem isn't marketplace companies privileging their own brands - it's with singular companies owning the marketplace to begin with. Humans are creatures of habit, and the way to make it so we aren't in the habit of just buying everything from $Amazon is to replace that with the habit of buying things through non-affiliated aggregators. I'd rather have one familiar UI showing me (Amazon Basics, Zoro Select, HDX, etc), than multiple UIs each showing me the same "competing" gensym brands.

zepto 6y ago
Why not just outlaw dark patterns in general as deceptive practices? All this focus on fixing particular companies or government mandating software architecture seems like it just gets the government more and more invovled while not doing anything to prevent the actual abuses.
- mindslight 6y ago
  It's impossible to formally define dark patterns, especially when trying to except traditional dark patterns (recurring sales, coupons, strategically placed roasting chickens, etc). And so any attempt to do that will necessarily "get the government more and more involved". Either through some administrative body that decides whether a certain thing is a "dark pattern", or through judicial remedies ("Here is your 57 cent media credit because Amazon lied about shipping cutoff times. They admit no wrongdoing but promise to never do it again"). Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software architecture". It's merely just a different form of the website that has a predictable structure. Amazon could even choose whatever structure they want, as long as it is documented and versioned. Both approaches aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm not arguing against the former. I just don't hold out hope for it to create meaningful reform - centralized bodies are just as likely to bless abusive practices.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Meanwhile mandating APIs isn't mandating "software architecture". It's merely just a different form of the website that has a predictable structure. That is software architecture.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      That's like calling a bike shed "civil engineering". I don't know what point you're making with the term "software architecture" other than trying to make it sound burdensome.
      - zepto 6y ago
        My point is that once you mandate that, then forever all stores must be architected around providing this web API, based on technology assumptions frozen in law. Building a P2P or distributed store, not based on a central website, just as an example, would be illegal. This is just one example of how the future would be encumbered forever based on a 90’s software architecture becoming enshrined in law. The web as it is today is not some endpoint in software evolution. A Government mandated API is literally the government regulating software architecture.
        mindslight 6y ago
        A law would be horribly broken if it said something like "all stores must have a web API". Alternatives of "web stores must have a web API" or "all businesses with a digital UI must have a published API offering the same features" wouldn't succumb to that. That's why I take issue with the word "architecture". If a business has chosen to offer a web storefront, a web API can be supplied right alongside that. There's no need for any "architecture" mandate - the business has chosen the architecture, and the law would mandate accessibility. Also a P2P/distributed store would itself be defined by an open API, making the issue moot.
        zepto 6y ago