3 ms·

Monopolistic regulation? This is clearly aimed against existing monopolies, i.e. gatekeepers. Can you explain how ensuring that 1. Making unsubscribing is as e

by Tryk 4y ago

Monopolistic regulation? This is clearly aimed against existing monopolies, i.e. gatekeepers. Can you explain how ensuring that 1. Making unsubscribing is as easy as subscribing, and 2. Guaranteed interoperability between instant messaging services, and 3. Sharing marketing and/or advertisement performance with business users will "kill competition"?

sfe22 4y ago
- Tryk 4y ago
  Okay, so would it not follow that all regulation is monopolistic by this definition? Again I am curious how you believe this will "kill competition" by regulating for points 1-3 in my previous post.
  - sfe22 4y ago
    Monopolistic regulation kills competition by increasing the cost of entering that market, while established players have the capital and necessary connections for workarounds. For example imagine a new company trying to build an iPhone with minimal app store, well guess what, now they have to also build support for third party store, developer tools, etc… which increases their cost to launch. Apple on the other hand will have all this taken care of. It will have multiple people making sure regulators are happy (or rich). While I later found that this will not target small companies, so in this aspect this regulation will likely have minimal impact.
    - fabianhjr 4y ago
      > For example imagine a new company trying to build an iPhone with minimal app store, well guess what, now they have to also build support for third party store, developer tools, etc… which increases their cost to launch. That new company won't have neither 45 million users nor over 7.5 Billion EUR turnover in the last 3 consecutive-years. You are making a false and bad-faith argument against the regulation in question just to promote your laissez-faire ideology.
      - hirako2000 4y ago
        Sadely it is unlikely unconscious bad faith. It is the type of argumentor that would at the same time defend taxation, and control of movements, and think that it's absolutely necessary to keep education free or at least provide government grants. It isn't laissez-faire arguments, they would have consistency and merits. It is filled with fallacies formed as souless echoes of the manipulators behind them. Nothing else. All the comments I've read against the regulation are laughable, but let's see, the number comments will continue to grow some more. It's Popcorn and classical music on my side.
      - sfe22 4y ago
        Did you skip the last sentence so you could make bad-faith baseless accusation to promote your one-monopoly ideology?
    - hirako2000 4y ago
      As pointed out in other comments, the regulation applies to companies of a certain size. It isn't clear of course who will get hit by it in perfectly legal and also fairly, but it's crystal clear who have been abusing their market position and that they will have to stop many of their monopolistic practices. Sometimes I really do wonder whether some commenters, given their counter arguments, work at a facebook/amazong/netflix/google, or that they hope/dream to work for one of those or all one after the othe, or if they naively believe like gospel what these companies tell them as consumers of their products filled with privacy concerns and dark marketing patterns. Or a combination of the 2 out of the 3. The other possibilities are of course sarcasm or generalised brainwashed syndrome. I'm against all form of regulations. Life is wild and I would rather advocate education. But hey, since we heavily regulated the 99%, let's at least regulate the 1%. They alone have far more damage power than everyone else combined.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > It is monopolistic regulation, as in the people of Europe do not have a choice on another regulation, or no regulation if it doesn't suit them. It affects everyone and can severely harm ones freedom of choice in that area. What? They have a choice in whom they vote for. Or you mean that all legislation is "monopolistic"?
  - sfe22 4y ago
    Voting for a ruler isn’t really the same as choosing what regulations and standards work for you. First you only have two or three possible rulers to select from. Second, they rarely change, for example every few years or decades sometimes. Third, even if you favorite ruler is eventually in power, you still don’t control their thinking or actions.
- the_duke 4y ago
  That's complete nonsense. This regulation increases freedom for everyone (users and businesses), except for large platform operators. You as a user are free to continue exactly as you were, and if you are a business that is not Apple or Google you have more flexibility and freedom to choose.

by Tryk 4y ago

sfe22 4y ago

Tryk 4y ago
Okay, so would it not follow that all regulation is monopolistic by this definition? Again I am curious how you believe this will "kill competition" by regulating for points 1-3 in my previous post.
- sfe22 4y ago
  Monopolistic regulation kills competition by increasing the cost of entering that market, while established players have the capital and necessary connections for workarounds. For example imagine a new company trying to build an iPhone with minimal app store, well guess what, now they have to also build support for third party store, developer tools, etc… which increases their cost to launch. Apple on the other hand will have all this taken care of. It will have multiple people making sure regulators are happy (or rich). While I later found that this will not target small companies, so in this aspect this regulation will likely have minimal impact.
  - fabianhjr 4y ago
    > For example imagine a new company trying to build an iPhone with minimal app store, well guess what, now they have to also build support for third party store, developer tools, etc… which increases their cost to launch. That new company won't have neither 45 million users nor over 7.5 Billion EUR turnover in the last 3 consecutive-years. You are making a false and bad-faith argument against the regulation in question just to promote your laissez-faire ideology.
    - hirako2000 4y ago
      Sadely it is unlikely unconscious bad faith. It is the type of argumentor that would at the same time defend taxation, and control of movements, and think that it's absolutely necessary to keep education free or at least provide government grants. It isn't laissez-faire arguments, they would have consistency and merits. It is filled with fallacies formed as souless echoes of the manipulators behind them. Nothing else. All the comments I've read against the regulation are laughable, but let's see, the number comments will continue to grow some more. It's Popcorn and classical music on my side.
    - sfe22 4y ago
      Did you skip the last sentence so you could make bad-faith baseless accusation to promote your one-monopoly ideology?
  - hirako2000 4y ago
    As pointed out in other comments, the regulation applies to companies of a certain size. It isn't clear of course who will get hit by it in perfectly legal and also fairly, but it's crystal clear who have been abusing their market position and that they will have to stop many of their monopolistic practices. Sometimes I really do wonder whether some commenters, given their counter arguments, work at a facebook/amazong/netflix/google, or that they hope/dream to work for one of those or all one after the othe, or if they naively believe like gospel what these companies tell them as consumers of their products filled with privacy concerns and dark marketing patterns. Or a combination of the 2 out of the 3. The other possibilities are of course sarcasm or generalised brainwashed syndrome. I'm against all form of regulations. Life is wild and I would rather advocate education. But hey, since we heavily regulated the 99%, let's at least regulate the 1%. They alone have far more damage power than everyone else combined.
whimsicalism 4y ago
> It is monopolistic regulation, as in the people of Europe do not have a choice on another regulation, or no regulation if it doesn't suit them. It affects everyone and can severely harm ones freedom of choice in that area. What? They have a choice in whom they vote for. Or you mean that all legislation is "monopolistic"?
- sfe22 4y ago
  Voting for a ruler isn’t really the same as choosing what regulations and standards work for you. First you only have two or three possible rulers to select from. Second, they rarely change, for example every few years or decades sometimes. Third, even if you favorite ruler is eventually in power, you still don’t control their thinking or actions.
the_duke 4y ago
That's complete nonsense. This regulation increases freedom for everyone (users and businesses), except for large platform operators. You as a user are free to continue exactly as you were, and if you are a business that is not Apple or Google you have more flexibility and freedom to choose.