3 ms·

The release does not say these things, and it is misleading to intentionally paraphrase as to invent logical conflicts that aren't present. In particular, it is

The release does not say these things, and it is misleading to intentionally paraphrase as to invent logical conflicts that aren't present. In particular, it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. Examples: Kicking a scammer off your app store is a use of power that benefits the consumer. Obliging service providers to mislead the consumer about their subscription options is an abuse of power and a barrier to consumer choice. The desired outcomes are not "bipolar"; they are consistent with advancing consumer choice and consumer protection. They would only appears as conflicting demands to a rent-seeking organisation that prioritises its market share over consumer outcomes, which is of course why regulatory agencies like the ACCC exist.

simondotau 6y ago
> The release does not say these things I'm sorry, but it does. Just because they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did doesn't mean they didn't invoke these logical conflicts. But please, there's no need to take my word for it—I invite anyone to read the press release and form their own conclusion. > it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. I agree that it's "wrong" to equate them, but equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems. You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter. One look at the borderline-corrupt Media Bargaining Code would quickly disabuse any objective observer of that notion. It could be argued that the ACCC was somehow incapable of comprehending what an internet link is or how news article snippets come to appear on Google and Facebook. That's certainly a more charitable hypothesis than the ACCC being corrupt unduly influenced by the political interests of the current elected Government. Whether it's incompetence or malice (see Hanlon's razor) it doesn't look good for them.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  > they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did Quite so. Let's emphasise that: they chose not to phrase it exactly as you did. And by my reading, significantly so. > I invite anyone to read the press release How about going one better: read the report that the media release accompanies. > equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems That's by the by, because this report does not make the same category error, and is a nuanced, lengthy, and considered analysis of the myriad different modes in which their controlling power is underused in some ways that leave the consumer unprotected, and overused/abused in other ways that harm consumer choice, create barriers to market entry, and enable rent-seeking behaviour, and suggests how changes in specific behaviours might correct those pathologies. > You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter Well, yes, this is their job, their remit, their raison d'être. Deviation from that premise is the exception, not the norm, and frankly they are known globally as one of the most effective consumer regulators, and the ACL as gold-standard legislation that sibling institutions in other nations can only dream of administering. Trying to discredit the organisation because they got pulled into the federal Murdoch toadying over the MBC looks like misdirection. Which makes me reach for my high school Latin: what is the equivalent of ad hominem when the target entity is an institution, not a person?
  - simondotau 6y ago
    > Well, yes, this is their job And we all know that people always do what their job title says they should do. > what is the equivalent of ad hominem Sigh. It seems 2021 is the year of calling things ad hominem which aren't. It's not ad hominem to accuse the ACCC of being untrustworthy because of prior bad actions in a recent, comparable matter. It would have been ad hominem if I said that the ACCC is untrustworthy because everyone who works there is very ugly.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      Okay, so what is the phrase for a shallow and transparent attempt to undermine the findings of a report by slinging mud about its origin, after being called out for misrepresenting the actual content? Rule: you can't say "sledging", only the other Australians will understand.
      - simondotau 6y ago
        "The Daily Telegraph"
pessimizer 6y ago
> Kicking a scammer off your app store is a use of power that benefits the consumer. But in a world that was taking consumer choice seriously would be primarily a job for law enforcement. We don't delegate traffic enforcement to the people who build and maintain roads.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Actually I think this'd be a recipe for scams to proliferate. Law enforcement processes mostly occur after the fact, often long after, and in any case, a great many nations already do take consumer choice seriously. The transportation metaphor is somewhat problematic, because roads are commissioned and paid for by the same class of agency that employs traffic enforcement officers: domestic government. Nevertheless, delegating the enforcement of regulations to an accountable private entity is a common practice, and you'll see it in everything from medicine to logistics.
PoignardAzur 6y ago
I've skimmed the full report, and OP's assessment feels somewhat fair. It feels like the ACCC is telling Google and Apple "lower false positives and also lower false negatives". They do have actionable proposals, eg "coordinated app ‘sweeps’ by consumer protection authorities", and establishing and independent app moderation authority, but overall the message kind of boils down to "do better simultaneously on every single front, even when they contradict each other".

simondotau 6y ago

> The release does not say these things I'm sorry, but it does. Just because they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did doesn't mean they didn't invoke these logical conflicts. But please, there's no need to take my word for it—I invite anyone to read the press release and form their own conclusion. > it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. I agree that it's "wrong" to equate them, but equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems. You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter. One look at the borderline-corrupt Media Bargaining Code would quickly disabuse any objective observer of that notion. It could be argued that the ACCC was somehow incapable of comprehending what an internet link is or how news article snippets come to appear on Google and Facebook. That's certainly a more charitable hypothesis than the ACCC being corrupt unduly influenced by the political interests of the current elected Government. Whether it's incompetence or malice (see Hanlon's razor) it doesn't look good for them.

inopinatus 6y ago
> they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did Quite so. Let's emphasise that: they chose not to phrase it exactly as you did. And by my reading, significantly so. > I invite anyone to read the press release How about going one better: read the report that the media release accompanies. > equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems That's by the by, because this report does not make the same category error, and is a nuanced, lengthy, and considered analysis of the myriad different modes in which their controlling power is underused in some ways that leave the consumer unprotected, and overused/abused in other ways that harm consumer choice, create barriers to market entry, and enable rent-seeking behaviour, and suggests how changes in specific behaviours might correct those pathologies. > You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter Well, yes, this is their job, their remit, their raison d'être. Deviation from that premise is the exception, not the norm, and frankly they are known globally as one of the most effective consumer regulators, and the ACL as gold-standard legislation that sibling institutions in other nations can only dream of administering. Trying to discredit the organisation because they got pulled into the federal Murdoch toadying over the MBC looks like misdirection. Which makes me reach for my high school Latin: what is the equivalent of ad hominem when the target entity is an institution, not a person?
- simondotau 6y ago
  > Well, yes, this is their job And we all know that people always do what their job title says they should do. > what is the equivalent of ad hominem Sigh. It seems 2021 is the year of calling things ad hominem which aren't. It's not ad hominem to accuse the ACCC of being untrustworthy because of prior bad actions in a recent, comparable matter. It would have been ad hominem if I said that the ACCC is untrustworthy because everyone who works there is very ugly.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Okay, so what is the phrase for a shallow and transparent attempt to undermine the findings of a report by slinging mud about its origin, after being called out for misrepresenting the actual content? Rule: you can't say "sledging", only the other Australians will understand.
    - simondotau 6y ago
      "The Daily Telegraph"

pessimizer 6y ago

> Kicking a scammer off your app store is a use of power that benefits the consumer. But in a world that was taking consumer choice seriously would be primarily a job for law enforcement. We don't delegate traffic enforcement to the people who build and maintain roads.

inopinatus 6y ago
Actually I think this'd be a recipe for scams to proliferate. Law enforcement processes mostly occur after the fact, often long after, and in any case, a great many nations already do take consumer choice seriously. The transportation metaphor is somewhat problematic, because roads are commissioned and paid for by the same class of agency that employs traffic enforcement officers: domestic government. Nevertheless, delegating the enforcement of regulations to an accountable private entity is a common practice, and you'll see it in everything from medicine to logistics.

PoignardAzur 6y ago

I've skimmed the full report, and OP's assessment feels somewhat fair. It feels like the ACCC is telling Google and Apple "lower false positives and also lower false negatives". They do have actionable proposals, eg "coordinated app ‘sweeps’ by consumer protection authorities", and establishing and independent app moderation authority, but overall the message kind of boils down to "do better simultaneously on every single front, even when they contradict each other".