6 ms·

yeah cuz everything we did in past worked out so well

BoorishBears 5y ago
I don't get what this comment is trying to say. I agree that at some point it does start to feel like the EU is just souring the grapes they failed to grow themselves. Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? Trying to mandate interop is I'm sure a dream for the .0001% of users who've been clamoring to get back on Pidgin... But any meaningful amount of their revenue being fined for not providing that is ludicrous to me. It's just not withholding that kind of value from end users.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? Because these user-hostile practices give the companies who employ them a competitive advantage, making it very difficult for better companies to compete.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    I'm refuting that outright. Again, the vast majority of users will not take advantage of federation. If they had, Facebook wouldn't have been able to drop their XMPP support like it was nothing. Despite the wants of the technical minority, it does not provide nearly as much value as these ultra specialized protocols do. You see iPhone users declining to communicate with Android users over being forced to use the least common denominator. They would rather not talk to someone than give up HQ pictures they'll look at for 5 seconds and forget. Federation is a random stumbling block that at best will cement big players vs regulatory capture. It's not going to make competition easier. Having an SMS to your competitor's iMessage is not going to make your iMessage competitor easier to launch. - And on a larger scale, the EU lost because they moved too slowly, acting like abusive practices is why Google ate search, Apple innovated themselves into their own kingdom, etc. is ridiculous. Silicon Valley might slowly be losing its influence, and these companies do take actions that should be regulated (like targeted ads at minors) but Europe did not form its "Silicon Valley" fast enough. It fell behind in tech, and so now it stays behind in tech. The bad behavior is a sideshow compared to that. Anti-competitive behavior isn't why they can't compete, trying to battle the resources and talent these companies with nowhere near equivalent footing is why they can't compete.
    - dvdkon 5y ago
      Facebook can be so user-hostile precisely because competition in that sector is broken. When Facebook removed XMPP support, what did their users do? Nothing, because if they valued XMPP support, they also valued the conversations and friends they already had on Facebook. Network effects are definitely a thing.
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        You're applying some bizarre revisionist history here, XMPP being phased out affected a vast minority of users concerned about what Pidgin would now do. This is the internet, go back and look at the reactions yourself. And XMPP will not let you fight with Facebook's network effects. Point to one major competitor to Facebook that was taking advantage of XMPP to reach even 10% of their billions of users in 2015? XMPP is a bloated mess that would struggle to support half of what Messenger does, so you'd just get another iMessage vs SMS deal. - Honestly it's bizarre how people think large companies work. Like someone sat down and said "let's rewrite our chat backend to kick off Pidgin and the other smattering of clients that use XMPP! Realistically XMPP was limiting, so they wrote a rich platform with MQTT, and added an API to interact with the new platform. It took years for XMPP to catch up to half of what Messenger was doing. Like these companies do enough bad stuff, can we stop inventing new things?
        nicoburns 5y ago
        > and added an API to interact with the new platform. Except that there isn't an API for the new platform. Not one that allows interaction even by a client that is willing to code specifically to a proprietary API. I don't think forcing companies to use a specific api (e.g. XMPP) is a good idea. But forcing them to expose functionality over a stable, documented, versioned API probably is.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        No, there is. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/ Maybe it doesn't do what you want it to (personal use 3rd party client?), but again, we get back to exactly what the reality was back when XMPP was around... Literally no one was ever able to even come close to leveraging XMPP to counter Facebook's network effect. And the vast majority of interactions happened by clicking the little message icon in a Facebook property. Like even officially recommending companies do so, I would not have a problem with. But to me it's simple, a punishment should be at least somewhat proportional to the damage + some punitive multiplier. The damage of not having something like XMPP is nearly 0. You multiply it and it should still be nearly 0. - More than that, again, has a terrible smell of not actually about being the stated goal, but rather trying to ride the wave of an industry you fell behind in. And to that I say, catch up instead. People come up with all sorts of excuses... China sure is competing. Even India is competing locally with outsiders. Europe simply has not made comparable the investments or efforts to other parts of the world to throw in the towel and claim "big bad FAANG can never be out competed unless we kneecap them"
- pokot0 5y ago
  China banned your beloved grapes all together and I don't see you stopping trading with them. Any country is free to tax or ban any business as much as they see fit, in the best interest if their citizen that elected them. I really don't see your point here, even if this was a taxing attempt. EU people don't distrust government as much as US does. Why do you feel you have a right to judge their values and policies? We are talking about democracies here. Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money. If anything you should use this difference to monitor how much of your policies are shaped in the interest of lobbies vs citizens.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    What a bizarre comment, are you just upset that I said your region is not competitive in tech (it's not) and reaching for anything you can? I mean let's start with the irrelevant anti-China ranting.. where did I say we should stop trading with Europe?! Did you just feel a need to shoehorn China into the conversation because they're the other major power in tech? - And then the weird commentary about why I feel I have a right to judge their policies... You mean their policies as they affect American companies that dominate the space? Forget that for a second even, as if I don't live in a country I can't have an opinion on their actions? Like if you have something meaningful to say, try again, and maybe say something on topic.
    - pokot0 5y ago
      Ok. I thought I'd give you a chance, but I think you are just trolling at this point or having a bad day. Yes, you can think whatever you want but I am not interested in listening to you . Have a nice day!
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        At this point I feel like you must be projecting, so indeed, have a nice day. And maybe learn more about the institutions you're talking about: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/transparency/lobby-groups https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/transparen... "Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money"
- simion314 5y ago
  >Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? I still want my government not to ignore abuses of foreign companies. I could make say a competitor to say Google or Apple messenger but to have a mobile application I need to first get approved by Apple and Google in their store, get access to same APIs. Then on top of that if I make a cool paid messenger app Apple and Google would tax me while their offer their shitty messengers for free because they abuse their dominance in a merket to compete in a different one. You know free market theory has some axioms, some of them are about competition and free markets(no monopolies or duopolies/cartels or same economic agent competing in many different markets using the dominance from A to screw competition in B) -> free market works IF and ONLY IF there is actually a free market.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    If you actually read the comment chain above yours I go very in depth about why implying a lack of interop is an "abuse" is ludicrous. Checking abuses, sure, go for it. Arbitrarily setting up rules to collect a toll instead of just getting your car in the race, no. American companies shouldn't allow it, the American government should exert pressure when possible to avoid it. Even banning the services is better than that, at least there's some internal consistency to there. You don't get to start pissing in the pot because you don't have a plate.
    - simion314 5y ago
      EU works different then US and as a citizen I am happy. For example I can use any ATM from any bank with super low fees, I can port my phone number to any network with 0 fees, when some garbage money exchange locations were printing ins super small fonts the fees our local politicians forced them to use giant fonts(I bet US marketing and bullshit entrepreneurs hate it when citizens using the laws force them to stop abusing them). The same way I can move my phone number I should be able to change my IM client, if you are a US company that does not care about us poor EU citizens then feel free to go away. Conclusion, if even in my local country we the citizens vote some people and demand of them to stop the giant tech to screw us over then you either respect it or go away, but you have your right to complain and I have the right to tell you that you are missing the point. About competing, as I said before, I was thinking to start a open free music platform , where muysicians can sell their stuff without 0 parasites sucking the profits, but I can't do that because of Apple and Google that will always suck 30% from the creators and this profits will go to enrich some billionaires in countries that do not respect human rights, kill journalists and do other crimes. I can't implement my dream because of unfair competition.

I don't get what this comment is trying to say. I agree that at some point it does start to feel like the EU is just souring the grapes they failed to grow themselves. Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? Trying to mandate interop is I'm sure a dream for the .0001% of users who've been clamoring to get back on Pidgin... But any meaningful amount of their revenue being fined for not providing that is ludicrous to me. It's just not withholding that kind of value from end users.

nicoburns 5y ago
> Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? Because these user-hostile practices give the companies who employ them a competitive advantage, making it very difficult for better companies to compete.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  I'm refuting that outright. Again, the vast majority of users will not take advantage of federation. If they had, Facebook wouldn't have been able to drop their XMPP support like it was nothing. Despite the wants of the technical minority, it does not provide nearly as much value as these ultra specialized protocols do. You see iPhone users declining to communicate with Android users over being forced to use the least common denominator. They would rather not talk to someone than give up HQ pictures they'll look at for 5 seconds and forget. Federation is a random stumbling block that at best will cement big players vs regulatory capture. It's not going to make competition easier. Having an SMS to your competitor's iMessage is not going to make your iMessage competitor easier to launch. - And on a larger scale, the EU lost because they moved too slowly, acting like abusive practices is why Google ate search, Apple innovated themselves into their own kingdom, etc. is ridiculous. Silicon Valley might slowly be losing its influence, and these companies do take actions that should be regulated (like targeted ads at minors) but Europe did not form its "Silicon Valley" fast enough. It fell behind in tech, and so now it stays behind in tech. The bad behavior is a sideshow compared to that. Anti-competitive behavior isn't why they can't compete, trying to battle the resources and talent these companies with nowhere near equivalent footing is why they can't compete.
  - dvdkon 5y ago
    Facebook can be so user-hostile precisely because competition in that sector is broken. When Facebook removed XMPP support, what did their users do? Nothing, because if they valued XMPP support, they also valued the conversations and friends they already had on Facebook. Network effects are definitely a thing.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      You're applying some bizarre revisionist history here, XMPP being phased out affected a vast minority of users concerned about what Pidgin would now do. This is the internet, go back and look at the reactions yourself. And XMPP will not let you fight with Facebook's network effects. Point to one major competitor to Facebook that was taking advantage of XMPP to reach even 10% of their billions of users in 2015? XMPP is a bloated mess that would struggle to support half of what Messenger does, so you'd just get another iMessage vs SMS deal. - Honestly it's bizarre how people think large companies work. Like someone sat down and said "let's rewrite our chat backend to kick off Pidgin and the other smattering of clients that use XMPP! Realistically XMPP was limiting, so they wrote a rich platform with MQTT, and added an API to interact with the new platform. It took years for XMPP to catch up to half of what Messenger was doing. Like these companies do enough bad stuff, can we stop inventing new things?
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        > and added an API to interact with the new platform. Except that there isn't an API for the new platform. Not one that allows interaction even by a client that is willing to code specifically to a proprietary API. I don't think forcing companies to use a specific api (e.g. XMPP) is a good idea. But forcing them to expose functionality over a stable, documented, versioned API probably is.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        No, there is. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/ Maybe it doesn't do what you want it to (personal use 3rd party client?), but again, we get back to exactly what the reality was back when XMPP was around... Literally no one was ever able to even come close to leveraging XMPP to counter Facebook's network effect. And the vast majority of interactions happened by clicking the little message icon in a Facebook property. Like even officially recommending companies do so, I would not have a problem with. But to me it's simple, a punishment should be at least somewhat proportional to the damage + some punitive multiplier. The damage of not having something like XMPP is nearly 0. You multiply it and it should still be nearly 0. - More than that, again, has a terrible smell of not actually about being the stated goal, but rather trying to ride the wave of an industry you fell behind in. And to that I say, catch up instead. People come up with all sorts of excuses... China sure is competing. Even India is competing locally with outsiders. Europe simply has not made comparable the investments or efforts to other parts of the world to throw in the towel and claim "big bad FAANG can never be out competed unless we kneecap them"
pokot0 5y ago
China banned your beloved grapes all together and I don't see you stopping trading with them. Any country is free to tax or ban any business as much as they see fit, in the best interest if their citizen that elected them. I really don't see your point here, even if this was a taxing attempt. EU people don't distrust government as much as US does. Why do you feel you have a right to judge their values and policies? We are talking about democracies here. Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money. If anything you should use this difference to monitor how much of your policies are shaped in the interest of lobbies vs citizens.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  What a bizarre comment, are you just upset that I said your region is not competitive in tech (it's not) and reaching for anything you can? I mean let's start with the irrelevant anti-China ranting.. where did I say we should stop trading with Europe?! Did you just feel a need to shoehorn China into the conversation because they're the other major power in tech? - And then the weird commentary about why I feel I have a right to judge their policies... You mean their policies as they affect American companies that dominate the space? Forget that for a second even, as if I don't live in a country I can't have an opinion on their actions? Like if you have something meaningful to say, try again, and maybe say something on topic.
  - pokot0 5y ago
    Ok. I thought I'd give you a chance, but I think you are just trolling at this point or having a bad day. Yes, you can think whatever you want but I am not interested in listening to you . Have a nice day!
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      At this point I feel like you must be projecting, so indeed, have a nice day. And maybe learn more about the institutions you're talking about: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/transparency/lobby-groups https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/transparen... "Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money"
simion314 5y ago
>Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? I still want my government not to ignore abuses of foreign companies. I could make say a competitor to say Google or Apple messenger but to have a mobile application I need to first get approved by Apple and Google in their store, get access to same APIs. Then on top of that if I make a cool paid messenger app Apple and Google would tax me while their offer their shitty messengers for free because they abuse their dominance in a merket to compete in a different one. You know free market theory has some axioms, some of them are about competition and free markets(no monopolies or duopolies/cartels or same economic agent competing in many different markets using the dominance from A to screw competition in B) -> free market works IF and ONLY IF there is actually a free market.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  If you actually read the comment chain above yours I go very in depth about why implying a lack of interop is an "abuse" is ludicrous. Checking abuses, sure, go for it. Arbitrarily setting up rules to collect a toll instead of just getting your car in the race, no. American companies shouldn't allow it, the American government should exert pressure when possible to avoid it. Even banning the services is better than that, at least there's some internal consistency to there. You don't get to start pissing in the pot because you don't have a plate.
  - simion314 5y ago
    EU works different then US and as a citizen I am happy. For example I can use any ATM from any bank with super low fees, I can port my phone number to any network with 0 fees, when some garbage money exchange locations were printing ins super small fonts the fees our local politicians forced them to use giant fonts(I bet US marketing and bullshit entrepreneurs hate it when citizens using the laws force them to stop abusing them). The same way I can move my phone number I should be able to change my IM client, if you are a US company that does not care about us poor EU citizens then feel free to go away. Conclusion, if even in my local country we the citizens vote some people and demand of them to stop the giant tech to screw us over then you either respect it or go away, but you have your right to complain and I have the right to tell you that you are missing the point. About competing, as I said before, I was thinking to start a open free music platform , where muysicians can sell their stuff without 0 parasites sucking the profits, but I can't do that because of Apple and Google that will always suck 30% from the creators and this profits will go to enrich some billionaires in countries that do not respect human rights, kill journalists and do other crimes. I can't implement my dream because of unfair competition.