3 ms·

I (and apparently the EU law makers) think they should be. When elected officials decide that a Plattform/network is now part of the public space the owners lo

I (and apparently the EU law makers) think they should be. When elected officials decide that a Plattform/network is now part of the public space the owners loose out. It happened to railways, telephone grids and all in all was an improvement.

can16358p 5y ago
If government thinks access to a commonground chat platform is a necessity for the public, then they should either provide it themselves or buy/outsource a state-operated private service instead of messing up with private companies' private platforms. What they are doing is equivalent of trespassing private property, such laws shouldn't exist in 2022.
- toyg 5y ago
  > a state-operated private service If they implement a public service, freemarketers not unlike yourself will accuse them of unfair competition and spend their lives sabotaging them, like Murdoch does with the BBC in the UK. The reality is that your position is effectively that nothing should change, and everything in this space is as good as it can be. The public at large clearly disagrees, and this is a step in the direction of addressing some problems that are extremely hard to deny. Besides, nationalisation would be nothing new. There are laws in your country, whichever it may be, for the state to confiscate your land for the public interest. That's not trespassing, that's the power of the collective trumping other rights. This is not it anyway - this is mandating standards, like the size of your electrical plugs.
  - can16358p 5y ago
    Confiscating someone's land should also be illegal, but unfortunately government has too much power. Mandating size of plugs is a good thing for anyone to build things that can operate with electricity, mandating some private entity with a perfectly functional ecosystem without any interest to open its system to provide a certain type of socket, is not.
    - toyg 5y ago
      If it were "perfectly functional", people wouldn't be campaigning for this sort of laws. The reality is that these conglomerates are anything but perfect.
      - can16358p 5y ago
        They are perfectly functional, and no one has to use them. You either pay for their hardware (Apple) or be okay with some data harvesting (others) and get a free chat service in return. It's a fair game. And no one forces you to use anything: all my friends, literally every single person here uses WhatsApp for primary communication, and I've deleted my WhatsApp account 2 years ago and still communicate with anyone without issues.
        toyg 5y ago
        > They are perfectly functional For the people building them, yes. For the people using them, they are basically a massive con. "We will help you communicate!" Yeah, because this will allow you to harvest my data and sell me more shit. "We have these great features!" Yeah, that other networks had 20 years ago and you killed to enable the beforementioned con and monopolistic practices. > I've deleted my WhatsApp account 2 years ago and still communicate with anyone without issues. Well, good for you. I have WA groups that provide information about my kids' whereabout, schoolbus info, all sorts. Can I leave them? Yeah, in the same way I could walk out of civilization to go live on Jakku.
    - andrewjl 4y ago
      > Confiscating someone's land should also be illegal Genuine question, why?
- paxys 5y ago
  Why should they do it themselves? Food is necessary for the public, but there aren't a lot of governments running their own farms. Or construction companies, power generators, or really anything else. The best possible system is where people create goods and provide services to each other, and the government ensures a system where this exchange can be fair and thrive. This is exactly what they are doing with this law.
  - can16358p 5y ago
    If food farms or construction companies do something wrong, people can die. Power companies are being created while there are rules so they know what they're dealing with. What's happening here is someone created a platform, spent years building things, and now EU is coming and saying oh you HAVE TO open it up. Not even mentioning the mess about having different rules at different places (e.g. I can't send many things to people in the EU in Instagram DM). This is plain wrong.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      They don't have to do business in the EU then. Their government decided what is allowed in their country. If the companies don't like it, then they should have won the election, or they should leave and go do business elsewhere

can16358p 5y ago

If government thinks access to a commonground chat platform is a necessity for the public, then they should either provide it themselves or buy/outsource a state-operated private service instead of messing up with private companies' private platforms. What they are doing is equivalent of trespassing private property, such laws shouldn't exist in 2022.

toyg 5y ago
> a state-operated private service If they implement a public service, freemarketers not unlike yourself will accuse them of unfair competition and spend their lives sabotaging them, like Murdoch does with the BBC in the UK. The reality is that your position is effectively that nothing should change, and everything in this space is as good as it can be. The public at large clearly disagrees, and this is a step in the direction of addressing some problems that are extremely hard to deny. Besides, nationalisation would be nothing new. There are laws in your country, whichever it may be, for the state to confiscate your land for the public interest. That's not trespassing, that's the power of the collective trumping other rights. This is not it anyway - this is mandating standards, like the size of your electrical plugs.
- can16358p 5y ago
  Confiscating someone's land should also be illegal, but unfortunately government has too much power. Mandating size of plugs is a good thing for anyone to build things that can operate with electricity, mandating some private entity with a perfectly functional ecosystem without any interest to open its system to provide a certain type of socket, is not.
  - toyg 5y ago
    If it were "perfectly functional", people wouldn't be campaigning for this sort of laws. The reality is that these conglomerates are anything but perfect.
    - can16358p 5y ago
      They are perfectly functional, and no one has to use them. You either pay for their hardware (Apple) or be okay with some data harvesting (others) and get a free chat service in return. It's a fair game. And no one forces you to use anything: all my friends, literally every single person here uses WhatsApp for primary communication, and I've deleted my WhatsApp account 2 years ago and still communicate with anyone without issues.
      - toyg 5y ago
        > They are perfectly functional For the people building them, yes. For the people using them, they are basically a massive con. "We will help you communicate!" Yeah, because this will allow you to harvest my data and sell me more shit. "We have these great features!" Yeah, that other networks had 20 years ago and you killed to enable the beforementioned con and monopolistic practices. > I've deleted my WhatsApp account 2 years ago and still communicate with anyone without issues. Well, good for you. I have WA groups that provide information about my kids' whereabout, schoolbus info, all sorts. Can I leave them? Yeah, in the same way I could walk out of civilization to go live on Jakku.
  - andrewjl 4y ago
    > Confiscating someone's land should also be illegal Genuine question, why?
paxys 5y ago
Why should they do it themselves? Food is necessary for the public, but there aren't a lot of governments running their own farms. Or construction companies, power generators, or really anything else. The best possible system is where people create goods and provide services to each other, and the government ensures a system where this exchange can be fair and thrive. This is exactly what they are doing with this law.
- can16358p 5y ago
  If food farms or construction companies do something wrong, people can die. Power companies are being created while there are rules so they know what they're dealing with. What's happening here is someone created a platform, spent years building things, and now EU is coming and saying oh you HAVE TO open it up. Not even mentioning the mess about having different rules at different places (e.g. I can't send many things to people in the EU in Instagram DM). This is plain wrong.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    They don't have to do business in the EU then. Their government decided what is allowed in their country. If the companies don't like it, then they should have won the election, or they should leave and go do business elsewhere