26 ms·

Congress' push to regulate Big Tech is fizzling out

218 points by samizdis 4y ago

RajuVarghese 4y ago
In contrast, the EU is moving boldly forward with the Digital Markets Act [1]. It looks good on paper but I wonder what it means in practice. I wonder if this legislation will fizzle out too. [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/07/18/dma-council-gives-final-approval-to-new-rules-for-fair-competition-online/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022...
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Which ironically may slow things down in the U.S. even further (if the EU passes their legislation which seems very likely that they will)... many (American) policymakers might think, "why not sit for another year on domestic legislation and see if this ends up like GDPR with a bunch of unintended consequences before rolling it out in the U.S.?" edit in parenthesis for clarity
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  I just hope it has spillover effects into the US. Platforms like this are the biggest trench of economic rent the world has ever seen.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > hope it has spillover effects into the US Probably not, and for good reason. If Europe is moving first, it makes sense to wait and see how their approach fairs. We’ve learned a lot about what works and more about what doesn’t with GDPR, a bit more from v2 in California.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      But at the same time I expect the iphones will all be usb-c compatible by 2024 globally, not just in the EU I'm not sure how much to expect in the US. Is a one time VPN connection all you'll need in order to get sideloading working?
      - freedomben 4y ago
        I agree, I think it will spill over. It may harm the app store revenue, but it's going to result in a big adoption of Apple hardware by people who previously wouldn't have. When Apple loosening the reins doesn't result in Armageddon like so many people here seem to think it will, US customers will also pressure Apple to similar policies, and they will do it. It probably will hurt app store revenues, but Apple makes such a premium on hardware that it may make up or even exceed the losses from software competition.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > It probably will hurt app store revenues, but Apple makes such a premium on hardware that it may make up or even exceed the losses from software competition. Seems very unlikely to me. the profit margin on app store tax is going to be extremely high. The expert witness at the epic games trial estimated an 80% profit margin on 20 billion dollars of revenue. Comes out to $16B profit out of their total 25ish. That doesn't just disappear if apple allows sideloading, but it could easily shrink a great a deal. Even if apple somehow manages to gain greater market share, I just don't see it coming out as a net positive for them.
        freedomben 4y ago
        > Comes out to $16B profit out of their total 25ish Oh man, that's a high percentage. I was under the impression it was closer to 50%. With those numbers, you may be right. Although, I assume they will heavily market their own store as the only "true" app store and only secure one, etc, and a large amount of customers will stick with just theirs, so I would expect it wouldn't take too major of a hit, although if big names like Epic boycott the App Store that could definitely mess up that strategy.
  - klipt 4y ago
    If Europe wants these regulations and US doesn't, could it be because global rent seeking by US corporations ultimately benefits the US economy at the expense of other countries' economies?
    - permo-w 4y ago
      it certainly benefits US corporations at the expense of other countries' economies
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      Eh. It is the case that it benefits the US economy at the expense of others. I wouldn't go assuming that the difference in regulations is a precedent or primarily an effect of this. I think the US will catch up.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    I expect that when Apple complies, they will see huge market share gains, and they will realize that doing the same thing in the US is a good idea. People who already use Apple, are still going to use Apple, but people who don't because they want the freedom of Android might jump to Apple once that platform is more in line with their wants.
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      But Apple doesn’t care about market share. It is far more profitable now than it would be in a race to the bottom as a commodity hardware maker.
      - freedomben 4y ago
        > But Apple doesn’t care about market share. Are you sure? I distinctly remember them boasting in a keynote about how many Android users were using their app to switch to iOS. I could definitely believe that it's not a high strategic priority though. > It is far more profitable now than it would be in a race to the bottom as a commodity hardware maker. Agreed, but I don't think it would have to turn into a race to the bottom. Apple is a luxury brand now, and I expect they would continue to maintain that. The Apple logo is very much a status symbol (particularly for the young. My teenagers are literally made fun of at school for having "Androids" instead of iPhones), and I wouldn't expect that to change much. In fact I think as more people adopt it, being an Android user would become more of an aberration from cultural expectations than it already is.
      - newaccount2021 4y ago
    - kmlx 4y ago
      > I expect that when Apple complies, they will see huge market share gains > but people who don't because they want the freedom of Android might jump to Apple once that platform is more in line with their wants. i don’t think so for two reasons: 1. people in europe have much less disposable income and as such prefer cheaper devices. 2. people don’t really care about the so called “freedom of android” thus android has a steady 60 something percent in europe and as long as there are super cheap android devices, this will continue.
- Isinlor 4y ago
  Digital Markets Act is done deal, only formalities left. It has support of the EU Council, Parliament and Commission. If you read DMA it gives quite a lot of executive powers to EU Commission, so that approach can be adjusted as needed. As long as there will be political points in bashing American big-tech, it will not fizzle out.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - thewarrior 4y ago
    America has a lot more leverage over the EU now. I doubt it will be smooth sailing.
  - nikanj 4y ago
    No such thing as a done deal when all parties have billions to burn on lawyers & appeals
- endisneigh 4y ago
  The main difference is that the EU has no meaningful competition and so the only thing they really can do is legislate since innovation doesn’t seem like an option for the EU. I remember when Nokia represented top tier consumer tech. Oh well.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    EU is not one of the richest places on the planet thanks to the museum tickets, obviously there's lot's of innovation happening. In fact, EU is taking the lightweight and pro free market approach here. US tried to destroy TikTok instead of regulate it.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      The EU is rich but it’s not due to excellence in consumer tech. If anything TikTok is a great example since Shorts is catching up (albeit very slowly). What are the areas in consumer tech where Europe enjoys the worldwide advantage in sales and mindshare?
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        There are other things in life and business than consumer tech and consumer tech is not only photo sharing.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        I never claimed consumer tech is only photo sharing? You’re the one who even brought up Tiktok to begin with, lol. Sad how it’s so hard to give examples of the EUs excellence in mainstream consumer tech, I guess. There’s nothing wrong with the EU legislating since they can’t win the market share through traditional means. It’s a valid strategy. Let’s just not pretend, please. The restrictions that will be put in place may be what Europe needs to compete, but let’s just act like Europe is already in a strong competitive position.
      - poniko 4y ago
- tyrfing 4y ago
  > I wonder what it means in practice The requirements to provide data to business users and to advertisers are pretty interesting. Same for search engines having to sell all user data that they have.
nxm 4y ago
When speaker of the house benefits personally from big tech, why would she bite the hand that feeds her?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Are you insinuating that Nancy Pelosi's husband committed insider trading and got away with it? If that is true then he can also get away with shorting these big companies. If you know what the market will do ahead of time you can make money whether it goes up or down.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Investing in companies has a lot more plausible deniability than shorting them. I don't know the specifics of her husband's case or what he does. Most funds have fairly specific strategies laid out though. It would raise a lot of eyebrows to do something wildly different.
  - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
- Mtinie 4y ago
  She has no compelling reason to, nor do her peers across the political spectrum. This type of regulation has to be one of the more challenging to implement. Global social engagement means that any attempt to adjust the status quo means pissed off constituencies. For every person who sees the legitimate societal dangers posed by unconstrained growth of Tech’s influence, far more view that same growth as a positive and will actively resist curbing their personal freedoms. Soma is soma, whether it’s provided physically or digitally.
- Spivak 4y ago
  You’re like one step away from getting to the heart of it. US regulators have a golden calf they need to not kill because these companies make fistfuls of money, provide stable gainful employment to a few million workers, and give the US broad global influence. It’s way bigger than one representative.
hunglee2 4y ago
EU Digital Markets act will do the job of fighting for citizens rights. Even China is doing more - $1 billion fine for Didi for over collection of user data, this on top of the app being suspended during the entirety of the investigation (over a year)
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I'm not sure China's fine was about citizens rights rather than sending a message to tech companies and founders that started to have serious power that there's only one place in charge, and that's the government.
  - criley2 4y ago
    What's the difference between "enforcing citizens rights" and "ensuring that the private org understands that the government of the people is in charge" Do you believe a private business will respect citizens if it does not respect their government? Perhaps the American system of letting corporations run totally wild while neutering all regulation and legislation isn't the best way to protect citizen rights or create company's that respect citizens by default. But hey the dividends are great
    - hoseja 4y ago
      The difference is one of those governments is actively running concentration camps.
      - kingkawn 4y ago
        I agree, American prisons are abhorrent slow-motion holocausts
        trasz 4y ago
        Prisons are a different thing altogether; the "concentration camps" he's talking about look more like youth detention centers in some of Eastern Europe.
alaric410 4y ago
Thankfully the EU is stepping up.
LatteLazy 4y ago
There was never really one "push" on this, there were half a dozen different, often mutually exclusive pushes. Lots of people wanted more regulation, then it became clear some wanted more censorship and some less, some just wanted advertising to be cheaper etc. Also it was never clear to me that any of the demands were likely to be viable in a world where views are worth 1e-4 pence each or compatible with the US Constitution.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
Proven 4y ago
hourago 4y ago
USA is repeating the same mistake that with the car industry. Instead of a balanced legislation that allows for growth and keep citizens happy the USA went all in on car centric cities to please car manufacturers. The same history seems to repeat itself with the tech industry. Instead of balance it seems that the bet is all in on tech controlled society to please tech companies. The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes.
- jmeister 4y ago
  How popular were the car companies? US big tech companies like amazon and Google enjoy more bipartisan support than practically any other institution, except maybe the military.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-public-wants-regulation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-pu... It’s been a story for a couple of years that big tech companies reputation in the US has tanked. There is bipartisan support for regulating them.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes. Nice analogy and I agree with your take on the political weakness and abdication. But the analogy is not quite right. Real cities and roads are physical. If they're built wrong people are stuck and have to adapt over many decades or generations. Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. While the EU are going for government moderation the US will get sharp corrections in good time, in a de-facto, pragmatic fashion. Ultimately the US attitude is "leave it to the people".
  - piva00 4y ago
    > Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. I agree with your take but I think you're underestimating network effects in this. Once a platform takes hold and grips people not through being the best product but the one with most reach it's very hard for a competitor to break that. Even more when competitors are simply bought and swallowed into the big corps.
yulaow 4y ago
Honestly big tech has got too big and too much lobbying power in USA and I believe at this point, unless something really revolutionary happens, they'll hold the whole executive and legislative branches by the balls for a very long time. Adding this to the hard political bipolarism in USA, the situation looks extremely grim in the future.
firasd 4y ago
I always thought the 'techlash' was more of an elite discourse thing than a real grassroots thing. Elizabeth Warren launched her primary campaign with big billboards saying 'Break Up Big Tech' and that campaign wasn't very successful. To the extent that people were generally mad at Facebook a lot of it was a hangover from the 2016 election
- fallingknife 4y ago
  This is 100% correct. People love Amazon because it's super convenient. The "techlash" is astroturf from the media and politicians. https://reason.com/2021/07/06/poll-people-like-amazon-more-than-any-institution-but-the-u-s-military/ https://reason.com/2021/07/06/poll-people-like-amazon-more-t...
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Even if that wasn't the case yesterday it is today. The plumber doesn't have the luxury of caring WTF FB and Google are up to when his van eats $100 of gas every day. There's a baseline amount of economic stability in one's lifestyle that's needed before people care about fairly abstract and diffuse problems like big tech and the environment.
  - dominotw 4y ago
    True. Most of my working class mexican family don't know what exactly is Latinx or why they should be referring to themselves as latinx. Democratic party is dominated by "college educated females" and media pundits so much so they they have separated themselves into a safe space from people they are supposedly advocating for.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  No only that, but I think journalists in elite publications feel threatened by the likes of Google and Facebook.
- svnt 4y ago
  It is my understanding that this is basically how the dissemination of opinions and ideas work. The fact that at a frozen moment in history a leading edge opinion did not garner much popular support does not mean it will not be popular in the future. We are in the future.
jmyeet 4y ago
Of course it is. Why? Because both parties operate at the behest of the capital-owning class. The only bills that pass are performative, extend police power domestically (eg [1]) or extend military power internationally (which typically means a massive giveaway to the military-industrial complex anyway). Nothing curtails corporate power. It's also why the focus of politics is on being divisive on social issues. This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics/house-vote-supreme-court-justice-security/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics/house-vote-supre...
- Frost1x 4y ago
  Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" The alternative is to fix rampant abuses we see with highly concentrated capital accumulation that results in a proxy of many unchecked powers in private and increasingly public spaces. There's lots of paths being pursued to curb this. Antitrust legislation and most business regulation exists because of abuses that naturally arise, I don't know why the narrative of continued deregulation solves these problems--regulation is pretty much the only way to leverage the benefits of capitalism without allowing it to become yet another oppressive system over the majority of society where the oppressors just become a class of the ultrawealthy. My opinion is that were well on our way down that path as we see increasingly less value add back to society and a lot more value capture strategies instead.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    > Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" I don't think as many people say that as you think. I think most people want better regulation and control, but perhaps done incrementally (with haste) and with a feedback circuit. Most alternatives that have been "hard-stop" switched to lead to a lot more destruction and problems than we currently have now
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    I would like to see some evidence for this "continued deregulation" I always hear about. Seems like everywhere I look regulation either has stayed the same or been tightened.
mdrzn 4y ago
20 years ago I was amazed by US and wondered if I could ever move there. In the last 5-10 years my mind did a 180° flip and now I'm more happy than ever being in EU.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TMWNN 4y ago
Harry Truman said in 1945 about the atomic bomb, "We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies". I feel the same way about FAANG and Silicon Valley as a whole (and Wall Street, and Hollywood, and SpaceX/Tesla, and the Ivy League), that they are in the United States. That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. That doesn't mean I can't or won't decry their putting thumbs on scales toward a certain type of bien-pensant ideology. That does mean that, overall, I am very, very glad that they are American instead of Russian, Chinese, or even British, French, or German.
- smt88 4y ago
  I think you may need to look outside your bubble. There are large, influential tech companies in China and Russia. Alibaba has dramatically transformed American commerce and is essentially the soul of Amazon's marketplace. TikTok is the most influential social media platform. You also seem to assume that having those companies in the US means they have some sort of freedom-minded ideology or are reluctant to harm Americans, and we have seen that neither is true. Are you also glad several opioid producers were American?
  - ece 4y ago
    We are seeing calls to regulate TikTok more, and I wonder how many countries have laws saying user data needs to be in local countries. I think Wyden in the senate has a bill on this. There also seems to be plenty of local competition from Flipkart, Xiaomi etc.. that might not be as big, but effectively competes, if not as broadly. I think as the other reply cheekily points out, regulators around the world have been more effective at making sure the market stays competitive and preserves privacy etc..
- verinus 4y ago
  Actually one might think about the one beeing the result of the other ;)
WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
There’s plenty of competition IMO. This is a deflection of the real issue: people’s data rights. Just transparency of how it’s being used or opting out. - “Google showed me this ad or search because my data location has me at a political protest” - “Facebook shows me ad or post because I am under 18 black male but disguising it as an AI recommendation” - “TikTok shows me next video because my net worth is X and I am at a gay bar” - “YouTube showing me bitcoin scam ads because I’m from a college neighborhood and some biz geofenced us” Like the big creepy stuff.
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Data rights are important but not the only issue. We also have right to repair and the environmental concerns. As well as those of planned obsolescence. They go hand in hand. Then we also have the issues of closed systems, which is related to the data issue like the last two were related to each other.
hash872 4y ago
In the interests of trying to add something new to the conversation- I just finished a poly sci book called The Economic Effects of Constitutions, which argues that presidential systems in general are less regulated, have lower taxes, and have a smaller welfare state than parliamentary systems. As it relates to regulating Big Tech, we can compare the US and Europe here. The book says that the multiple centers of power in presidential systems, especially bicameral ones, means that there are many separate powerful groups that must be appeased to pass even popular legislation with a consensus behind it. Here, a separately elected President has to grapple with a separately elected House, plus a Senate where two-thirds of the members were elected at a completely different time. Plus, party discipline is weaker in presidential systems, so he can't just whip his party to fall in line (most famously with Sinemanchin recently). 3rd party lobbying is then more powerful with weaker parties and separately elected reps who must cater to the marginal voter or power group in their district. Powerful interest groups are more powerful in a presidency! Seeing as there's a broad but not ultra-strong consensus in both parties to Do Something with Big Tech, in a coalition parliamentary system a bill would've likely already passed. Whether you think that's good or bad is an exercise left up the reader, just wanted to introduce a new perspective :)
- pythonaut_16 4y ago
  There's a strong argument to be made that in the American system this is a feature and not a bug. The whole thing is designed to make it difficult to make big changes, especially unilaterally. Whether the system is serving us well or needs adjustments is a different matter.
  - gunapologist99 4y ago
    Even though I might be in favor of some variant of this bill, I'm really glad that it can't just be railroaded through without adequate debate. The "tyranny of the majority" can be a very real thing, and we need to be mindful that the tension between powers (separation of powers) was put there explicitly for this purpose -- to prevent a single powerful group from seizing control.
  - pfhayes 4y ago
pessimizer 4y ago
Monopoly regulation is the only thing that is functioning reasonably well in the administration, because it was made a centerpiece by during the campaign and for a while after as a substitute for non-existent social democratic positions, in order to keep the Bernie voter on board. The disarray of this administration affects this process in opposing ways: because everything is so disorganized, it's very difficult for Democratic lobbyists and donors to penetrate the bubble around these early appointees and compromise their work or shut them down. But on the other hand, since this looks like a one-term presidency with the administration going Republican as soon as it gets a chance, everybody knows that all they have to do is delay, slow-play, and wait it out.
- freedomben 4y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but I'm not so confident in a one-term presidency. It looks bad now, but there are still over two years to go and a lot can change. I expect after the mid-terms, we'll start to see some Democrat front-runners emerge and Biden will step aside to make way for them. Edit: After writing that above, I had another thought. I'm not so sure a Republican admin would be better. Republicans would normally (traditionally) be that way, but among the Republicans I've talked to there is extreme distaste for the power of big tech. I think it's very possible for a Republican to run against big tech and win with a mandate from their party to rein them in.
yonaguska 4y ago
Missing from the comments here, Big Tech in many cases, especially as far as social media is concerned, acts as a private extension of our intelligence agencies. We wouldn't want to regulate our own intel assets into irrelevance.
sk8terboi 4y ago
woevdbz 4y ago
And it's a good thing with the incoming recession. Good regulation should be countercyclical — it's in times of plenty that society can bear the cost of reform and restructure. Besides, tech won't need government's help to become less dominant in the next 5-10 years. I think once we see a few of the big names in tech suffer the same fates as Yahoo or AOL before us, the push for regulation will soften even more.
bastardoperator 4y ago
Yeah, I don't know. The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth are issues that are vastly more important than some stupid app store. Don't get me wrong, we should probably do something, but in terms of priority which everyone here should understand, it's lower on the list, which the article also mentions.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  You don't think all those other issues are related to the rise of the big tech industry in the US? Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. They are gatekeepers of information and dictators of what information you see. The rise of polarization in the United States is directly correlated with the rise of big tech. It's going to be hard to solve all the problems you mentioned while big tech continues to build platforms that are inherently designed to rip us apart. Engagement at all costs even if the cost is our basic ways of life.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    No, I don't think that at all. A lot of these issues pre-date big tech. I don't think you actually read the article. Explain to me how Apple is ripping us apart by not allowing other payment platforms on the App store and how being able to pay for in-app purchases through PayPal will make everything right again?
  - jjk166 4y ago
    > Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. If Fox Corporation wants to air something on its cable news station, or if Warner Bros Discovery wants to put something on CNN's website, or if the New York Times wants to print something on its front page, which big tech company can stop them? While a growing number of people get news from alternative sources enabled by some big tech companies, the traditional distribution channels still exist and are pretty much unpenetrated by these competitors. Meanwhile, the polarization we see now started developing long before any of the big tech players became powerful, and indeed before the internet even existed. There are numerous factors influencing the increase in polarizations, such as the decay of traditional social institutions that allowed people of varying beliefs to regularly interact with each other and give people something to talk about besides politics, a shift in political strategy in the late 20th century to make greater use of public opinion polling and focus on more devisive issues, socioeconomic changes that have shifted the balance of power between various groups meaning old political coalitions that maintained common ground have become unworkable, and a general stagnation in society that has driven many to anger and despair. Most tech giants don't particularly desire such polarization. Zuckerberg certainly didn't set out to build the optimal platform for middle aged women to share conspiracy theories. The fact that despite best efforts pretty much every internet platform's algorithm converges towards polarizing content means either no one knows how to make an internet platform that isn't toxic, or no one actually wants such a platform. Either way, any attempt to remedy polarization by regulating big tech is doomed to failure. If we can't find a way to solve the important problems while our society is polarized, they're not going to get solved at all.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Probably because they are more interested in virtue signaling and have no understanding of technology. Rather than actually make broad anti-monopoly rules, which quite frankly would be targeted more at Apple, they instead go on witchunts cause of conservative "censorship".
blinding-streak 4y ago
Well here's one potential reason: Lobbying. https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/07/21/apple-has-become-a-lobbying-powerhouse-amid-growing-antitrust-scrutiny https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/07/21/apple-has-become-...
missedthecue 4y ago
Because there is nothing worth regulating. There is ample competition everywhere that matters. Some made the more novice mistake of equating "big ass company" with "monopoly" but soon found out that such a misdiagnosis doesn't bring them to any meaningful conclusions.
ladyattis 4y ago
I think the biggest problem with regulating modern tech companies or most companies today is the fact that they've adapted to the old rules as to minimize triggering those laws being used by regulatory bodies. So you'll see companies buy up a firm but effectively keeping it an independent entity or leaving just enough competition in the market that they can effectively shape what their competitors will or won't do. It can have a similar result to the trusts and cartels of the past but without much of the problems of defection (in cartel situations), government intervention, and overhead. It seems to me that a whole new legal theory needs to be explored on the question rather than just forging ahead with the assumptions of the past that more regulation will prevent the concentration of capital whether directly or indirectly. Perhaps, the opposite situation needs to be applied such as making laws that encourage smaller firms to be created or make big companies pay the externalized costs of infrastructure in some novel way (ex. Amazon depends greatly on the interstate highway system to deliver their goods, so why shouldn't they pay more for the upkeep?).

218 points by samizdis 4y ago

In contrast, the EU is moving boldly forward with the Digital Markets Act [1]. It looks good on paper but I wonder what it means in practice. I wonder if this legislation will fizzle out too. [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/07/18/dma-council-gives-final-approval-to-new-rules-for-fair-competition-online/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022...

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Which ironically may slow things down in the U.S. even further (if the EU passes their legislation which seems very likely that they will)... many (American) policymakers might think, "why not sit for another year on domestic legislation and see if this ends up like GDPR with a bunch of unintended consequences before rolling it out in the U.S.?" edit in parenthesis for clarity
spywaregorilla 4y ago
I just hope it has spillover effects into the US. Platforms like this are the biggest trench of economic rent the world has ever seen.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > hope it has spillover effects into the US Probably not, and for good reason. If Europe is moving first, it makes sense to wait and see how their approach fairs. We’ve learned a lot about what works and more about what doesn’t with GDPR, a bit more from v2 in California.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    But at the same time I expect the iphones will all be usb-c compatible by 2024 globally, not just in the EU I'm not sure how much to expect in the US. Is a one time VPN connection all you'll need in order to get sideloading working?
    - freedomben 4y ago
      I agree, I think it will spill over. It may harm the app store revenue, but it's going to result in a big adoption of Apple hardware by people who previously wouldn't have. When Apple loosening the reins doesn't result in Armageddon like so many people here seem to think it will, US customers will also pressure Apple to similar policies, and they will do it. It probably will hurt app store revenues, but Apple makes such a premium on hardware that it may make up or even exceed the losses from software competition.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > It probably will hurt app store revenues, but Apple makes such a premium on hardware that it may make up or even exceed the losses from software competition. Seems very unlikely to me. the profit margin on app store tax is going to be extremely high. The expert witness at the epic games trial estimated an 80% profit margin on 20 billion dollars of revenue. Comes out to $16B profit out of their total 25ish. That doesn't just disappear if apple allows sideloading, but it could easily shrink a great a deal. Even if apple somehow manages to gain greater market share, I just don't see it coming out as a net positive for them.
        freedomben 4y ago
        > Comes out to $16B profit out of their total 25ish Oh man, that's a high percentage. I was under the impression it was closer to 50%. With those numbers, you may be right. Although, I assume they will heavily market their own store as the only "true" app store and only secure one, etc, and a large amount of customers will stick with just theirs, so I would expect it wouldn't take too major of a hit, although if big names like Epic boycott the App Store that could definitely mess up that strategy.
- klipt 4y ago
  If Europe wants these regulations and US doesn't, could it be because global rent seeking by US corporations ultimately benefits the US economy at the expense of other countries' economies?
  - permo-w 4y ago
    it certainly benefits US corporations at the expense of other countries' economies
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Eh. It is the case that it benefits the US economy at the expense of others. I wouldn't go assuming that the difference in regulations is a precedent or primarily an effect of this. I think the US will catch up.
- freedomben 4y ago
  I expect that when Apple complies, they will see huge market share gains, and they will realize that doing the same thing in the US is a good idea. People who already use Apple, are still going to use Apple, but people who don't because they want the freedom of Android might jump to Apple once that platform is more in line with their wants.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    But Apple doesn’t care about market share. It is far more profitable now than it would be in a race to the bottom as a commodity hardware maker.
    - freedomben 4y ago
      > But Apple doesn’t care about market share. Are you sure? I distinctly remember them boasting in a keynote about how many Android users were using their app to switch to iOS. I could definitely believe that it's not a high strategic priority though. > It is far more profitable now than it would be in a race to the bottom as a commodity hardware maker. Agreed, but I don't think it would have to turn into a race to the bottom. Apple is a luxury brand now, and I expect they would continue to maintain that. The Apple logo is very much a status symbol (particularly for the young. My teenagers are literally made fun of at school for having "Androids" instead of iPhones), and I wouldn't expect that to change much. In fact I think as more people adopt it, being an Android user would become more of an aberration from cultural expectations than it already is.
    - newaccount2021 4y ago
  - kmlx 4y ago
    > I expect that when Apple complies, they will see huge market share gains > but people who don't because they want the freedom of Android might jump to Apple once that platform is more in line with their wants. i don’t think so for two reasons: 1. people in europe have much less disposable income and as such prefer cheaper devices. 2. people don’t really care about the so called “freedom of android” thus android has a steady 60 something percent in europe and as long as there are super cheap android devices, this will continue.
Isinlor 4y ago
Digital Markets Act is done deal, only formalities left. It has support of the EU Council, Parliament and Commission. If you read DMA it gives quite a lot of executive powers to EU Commission, so that approach can be adjusted as needed. As long as there will be political points in bashing American big-tech, it will not fizzle out.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thewarrior 4y ago
  America has a lot more leverage over the EU now. I doubt it will be smooth sailing.
- nikanj 4y ago
  No such thing as a done deal when all parties have billions to burn on lawyers & appeals
endisneigh 4y ago
The main difference is that the EU has no meaningful competition and so the only thing they really can do is legislate since innovation doesn’t seem like an option for the EU. I remember when Nokia represented top tier consumer tech. Oh well.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  EU is not one of the richest places on the planet thanks to the museum tickets, obviously there's lot's of innovation happening. In fact, EU is taking the lightweight and pro free market approach here. US tried to destroy TikTok instead of regulate it.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    The EU is rich but it’s not due to excellence in consumer tech. If anything TikTok is a great example since Shorts is catching up (albeit very slowly). What are the areas in consumer tech where Europe enjoys the worldwide advantage in sales and mindshare?
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      There are other things in life and business than consumer tech and consumer tech is not only photo sharing.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        I never claimed consumer tech is only photo sharing? You’re the one who even brought up Tiktok to begin with, lol. Sad how it’s so hard to give examples of the EUs excellence in mainstream consumer tech, I guess. There’s nothing wrong with the EU legislating since they can’t win the market share through traditional means. It’s a valid strategy. Let’s just not pretend, please. The restrictions that will be put in place may be what Europe needs to compete, but let’s just act like Europe is already in a strong competitive position.
    - poniko 4y ago
tyrfing 4y ago
> I wonder what it means in practice The requirements to provide data to business users and to advertisers are pretty interesting. Same for search engines having to sell all user data that they have.

nxm 4y ago

When speaker of the house benefits personally from big tech, why would she bite the hand that feeds her?

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Are you insinuating that Nancy Pelosi's husband committed insider trading and got away with it? If that is true then he can also get away with shorting these big companies. If you know what the market will do ahead of time you can make money whether it goes up or down.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Investing in companies has a lot more plausible deniability than shorting them. I don't know the specifics of her husband's case or what he does. Most funds have fairly specific strategies laid out though. It would raise a lot of eyebrows to do something wildly different.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
Mtinie 4y ago
She has no compelling reason to, nor do her peers across the political spectrum. This type of regulation has to be one of the more challenging to implement. Global social engagement means that any attempt to adjust the status quo means pissed off constituencies. For every person who sees the legitimate societal dangers posed by unconstrained growth of Tech’s influence, far more view that same growth as a positive and will actively resist curbing their personal freedoms. Soma is soma, whether it’s provided physically or digitally.
Spivak 4y ago
You’re like one step away from getting to the heart of it. US regulators have a golden calf they need to not kill because these companies make fistfuls of money, provide stable gainful employment to a few million workers, and give the US broad global influence. It’s way bigger than one representative.

hunglee2 4y ago

EU Digital Markets act will do the job of fighting for citizens rights. Even China is doing more - $1 billion fine for Didi for over collection of user data, this on top of the app being suspended during the entirety of the investigation (over a year)

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I'm not sure China's fine was about citizens rights rather than sending a message to tech companies and founders that started to have serious power that there's only one place in charge, and that's the government.
- criley2 4y ago
  What's the difference between "enforcing citizens rights" and "ensuring that the private org understands that the government of the people is in charge" Do you believe a private business will respect citizens if it does not respect their government? Perhaps the American system of letting corporations run totally wild while neutering all regulation and legislation isn't the best way to protect citizen rights or create company's that respect citizens by default. But hey the dividends are great
  - hoseja 4y ago
    The difference is one of those governments is actively running concentration camps.
    - kingkawn 4y ago
      I agree, American prisons are abhorrent slow-motion holocausts
      - trasz 4y ago
        Prisons are a different thing altogether; the "concentration camps" he's talking about look more like youth detention centers in some of Eastern Europe.

alaric410 4y ago

Thankfully the EU is stepping up.

LatteLazy 4y ago

There was never really one "push" on this, there were half a dozen different, often mutually exclusive pushes. Lots of people wanted more regulation, then it became clear some wanted more censorship and some less, some just wanted advertising to be cheaper etc. Also it was never clear to me that any of the demands were likely to be viable in a world where views are worth 1e-4 pence each or compatible with the US Constitution.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago

Proven 4y ago

hourago 4y ago

USA is repeating the same mistake that with the car industry. Instead of a balanced legislation that allows for growth and keep citizens happy the USA went all in on car centric cities to please car manufacturers. The same history seems to repeat itself with the tech industry. Instead of balance it seems that the bet is all in on tech controlled society to please tech companies. The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes.

jmeister 4y ago
How popular were the car companies? US big tech companies like amazon and Google enjoy more bipartisan support than practically any other institution, except maybe the military.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-public-wants-regulation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-pu... It’s been a story for a couple of years that big tech companies reputation in the US has tanked. There is bipartisan support for regulating them.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes. Nice analogy and I agree with your take on the political weakness and abdication. But the analogy is not quite right. Real cities and roads are physical. If they're built wrong people are stuck and have to adapt over many decades or generations. Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. While the EU are going for government moderation the US will get sharp corrections in good time, in a de-facto, pragmatic fashion. Ultimately the US attitude is "leave it to the people".
- piva00 4y ago
  > Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. I agree with your take but I think you're underestimating network effects in this. Once a platform takes hold and grips people not through being the best product but the one with most reach it's very hard for a competitor to break that. Even more when competitors are simply bought and swallowed into the big corps.

yulaow 4y ago

Honestly big tech has got too big and too much lobbying power in USA and I believe at this point, unless something really revolutionary happens, they'll hold the whole executive and legislative branches by the balls for a very long time. Adding this to the hard political bipolarism in USA, the situation looks extremely grim in the future.

firasd 4y ago

I always thought the 'techlash' was more of an elite discourse thing than a real grassroots thing. Elizabeth Warren launched her primary campaign with big billboards saying 'Break Up Big Tech' and that campaign wasn't very successful. To the extent that people were generally mad at Facebook a lot of it was a hangover from the 2016 election

fallingknife 4y ago
This is 100% correct. People love Amazon because it's super convenient. The "techlash" is astroturf from the media and politicians. https://reason.com/2021/07/06/poll-people-like-amazon-more-than-any-institution-but-the-u-s-military/ https://reason.com/2021/07/06/poll-people-like-amazon-more-t...
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Even if that wasn't the case yesterday it is today. The plumber doesn't have the luxury of caring WTF FB and Google are up to when his van eats $100 of gas every day. There's a baseline amount of economic stability in one's lifestyle that's needed before people care about fairly abstract and diffuse problems like big tech and the environment.
- dominotw 4y ago
  True. Most of my working class mexican family don't know what exactly is Latinx or why they should be referring to themselves as latinx. Democratic party is dominated by "college educated females" and media pundits so much so they they have separated themselves into a safe space from people they are supposedly advocating for.
ch4s3 4y ago
No only that, but I think journalists in elite publications feel threatened by the likes of Google and Facebook.
svnt 4y ago
It is my understanding that this is basically how the dissemination of opinions and ideas work. The fact that at a frozen moment in history a leading edge opinion did not garner much popular support does not mean it will not be popular in the future. We are in the future.

jmyeet 4y ago

Of course it is. Why? Because both parties operate at the behest of the capital-owning class. The only bills that pass are performative, extend police power domestically (eg [1]) or extend military power internationally (which typically means a massive giveaway to the military-industrial complex anyway). Nothing curtails corporate power. It's also why the focus of politics is on being divisive on social issues. This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics/house-vote-supreme-court-justice-security/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics/house-vote-supre...

Frost1x 4y ago
Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" The alternative is to fix rampant abuses we see with highly concentrated capital accumulation that results in a proxy of many unchecked powers in private and increasingly public spaces. There's lots of paths being pursued to curb this. Antitrust legislation and most business regulation exists because of abuses that naturally arise, I don't know why the narrative of continued deregulation solves these problems--regulation is pretty much the only way to leverage the benefits of capitalism without allowing it to become yet another oppressive system over the majority of society where the oppressors just become a class of the ultrawealthy. My opinion is that were well on our way down that path as we see increasingly less value add back to society and a lot more value capture strategies instead.
- drekipus 4y ago
  > Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" I don't think as many people say that as you think. I think most people want better regulation and control, but perhaps done incrementally (with haste) and with a feedback circuit. Most alternatives that have been "hard-stop" switched to lead to a lot more destruction and problems than we currently have now
- fallingknife 4y ago
  I would like to see some evidence for this "continued deregulation" I always hear about. Seems like everywhere I look regulation either has stayed the same or been tightened.

mdrzn 4y ago

20 years ago I was amazed by US and wondered if I could ever move there. In the last 5-10 years my mind did a 180° flip and now I'm more happy than ever being in EU.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

TMWNN 4y ago

Harry Truman said in 1945 about the atomic bomb, "We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies". I feel the same way about FAANG and Silicon Valley as a whole (and Wall Street, and Hollywood, and SpaceX/Tesla, and the Ivy League), that they are in the United States. That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. That doesn't mean I can't or won't decry their putting thumbs on scales toward a certain type of bien-pensant ideology. That does mean that, overall, I am very, very glad that they are American instead of Russian, Chinese, or even British, French, or German.

smt88 4y ago
I think you may need to look outside your bubble. There are large, influential tech companies in China and Russia. Alibaba has dramatically transformed American commerce and is essentially the soul of Amazon's marketplace. TikTok is the most influential social media platform. You also seem to assume that having those companies in the US means they have some sort of freedom-minded ideology or are reluctant to harm Americans, and we have seen that neither is true. Are you also glad several opioid producers were American?
- ece 4y ago
  We are seeing calls to regulate TikTok more, and I wonder how many countries have laws saying user data needs to be in local countries. I think Wyden in the senate has a bill on this. There also seems to be plenty of local competition from Flipkart, Xiaomi etc.. that might not be as big, but effectively competes, if not as broadly. I think as the other reply cheekily points out, regulators around the world have been more effective at making sure the market stays competitive and preserves privacy etc..
verinus 4y ago
Actually one might think about the one beeing the result of the other ;)

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago

There’s plenty of competition IMO. This is a deflection of the real issue: people’s data rights. Just transparency of how it’s being used or opting out. - “Google showed me this ad or search because my data location has me at a political protest” - “Facebook shows me ad or post because I am under 18 black male but disguising it as an AI recommendation” - “TikTok shows me next video because my net worth is X and I am at a gay bar” - “YouTube showing me bitcoin scam ads because I’m from a college neighborhood and some biz geofenced us” Like the big creepy stuff.

thereddaikon 4y ago
Data rights are important but not the only issue. We also have right to repair and the environmental concerns. As well as those of planned obsolescence. They go hand in hand. Then we also have the issues of closed systems, which is related to the data issue like the last two were related to each other.

hash872 4y ago

In the interests of trying to add something new to the conversation- I just finished a poly sci book called The Economic Effects of Constitutions, which argues that presidential systems in general are less regulated, have lower taxes, and have a smaller welfare state than parliamentary systems. As it relates to regulating Big Tech, we can compare the US and Europe here. The book says that the multiple centers of power in presidential systems, especially bicameral ones, means that there are many separate powerful groups that must be appeased to pass even popular legislation with a consensus behind it. Here, a separately elected President has to grapple with a separately elected House, plus a Senate where two-thirds of the members were elected at a completely different time. Plus, party discipline is weaker in presidential systems, so he can't just whip his party to fall in line (most famously with Sinemanchin recently). 3rd party lobbying is then more powerful with weaker parties and separately elected reps who must cater to the marginal voter or power group in their district. Powerful interest groups are more powerful in a presidency! Seeing as there's a broad but not ultra-strong consensus in both parties to Do Something with Big Tech, in a coalition parliamentary system a bill would've likely already passed. Whether you think that's good or bad is an exercise left up the reader, just wanted to introduce a new perspective :)

pythonaut_16 4y ago
There's a strong argument to be made that in the American system this is a feature and not a bug. The whole thing is designed to make it difficult to make big changes, especially unilaterally. Whether the system is serving us well or needs adjustments is a different matter.
- gunapologist99 4y ago
  Even though I might be in favor of some variant of this bill, I'm really glad that it can't just be railroaded through without adequate debate. The "tyranny of the majority" can be a very real thing, and we need to be mindful that the tension between powers (separation of powers) was put there explicitly for this purpose -- to prevent a single powerful group from seizing control.
- pfhayes 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

Monopoly regulation is the only thing that is functioning reasonably well in the administration, because it was made a centerpiece by during the campaign and for a while after as a substitute for non-existent social democratic positions, in order to keep the Bernie voter on board. The disarray of this administration affects this process in opposing ways: because everything is so disorganized, it's very difficult for Democratic lobbyists and donors to penetrate the bubble around these early appointees and compromise their work or shut them down. But on the other hand, since this looks like a one-term presidency with the administration going Republican as soon as it gets a chance, everybody knows that all they have to do is delay, slow-play, and wait it out.

freedomben 4y ago
I mostly agree with you, but I'm not so confident in a one-term presidency. It looks bad now, but there are still over two years to go and a lot can change. I expect after the mid-terms, we'll start to see some Democrat front-runners emerge and Biden will step aside to make way for them. Edit: After writing that above, I had another thought. I'm not so sure a Republican admin would be better. Republicans would normally (traditionally) be that way, but among the Republicans I've talked to there is extreme distaste for the power of big tech. I think it's very possible for a Republican to run against big tech and win with a mandate from their party to rein them in.

yonaguska 4y ago

Missing from the comments here, Big Tech in many cases, especially as far as social media is concerned, acts as a private extension of our intelligence agencies. We wouldn't want to regulate our own intel assets into irrelevance.

sk8terboi 4y ago

woevdbz 4y ago

And it's a good thing with the incoming recession. Good regulation should be countercyclical — it's in times of plenty that society can bear the cost of reform and restructure. Besides, tech won't need government's help to become less dominant in the next 5-10 years. I think once we see a few of the big names in tech suffer the same fates as Yahoo or AOL before us, the push for regulation will soften even more.

bastardoperator 4y ago

Yeah, I don't know. The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth are issues that are vastly more important than some stupid app store. Don't get me wrong, we should probably do something, but in terms of priority which everyone here should understand, it's lower on the list, which the article also mentions.

parkingrift 4y ago
You don't think all those other issues are related to the rise of the big tech industry in the US? Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. They are gatekeepers of information and dictators of what information you see. The rise of polarization in the United States is directly correlated with the rise of big tech. It's going to be hard to solve all the problems you mentioned while big tech continues to build platforms that are inherently designed to rip us apart. Engagement at all costs even if the cost is our basic ways of life.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  No, I don't think that at all. A lot of these issues pre-date big tech. I don't think you actually read the article. Explain to me how Apple is ripping us apart by not allowing other payment platforms on the App store and how being able to pay for in-app purchases through PayPal will make everything right again?
- jjk166 4y ago
  > Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. If Fox Corporation wants to air something on its cable news station, or if Warner Bros Discovery wants to put something on CNN's website, or if the New York Times wants to print something on its front page, which big tech company can stop them? While a growing number of people get news from alternative sources enabled by some big tech companies, the traditional distribution channels still exist and are pretty much unpenetrated by these competitors. Meanwhile, the polarization we see now started developing long before any of the big tech players became powerful, and indeed before the internet even existed. There are numerous factors influencing the increase in polarizations, such as the decay of traditional social institutions that allowed people of varying beliefs to regularly interact with each other and give people something to talk about besides politics, a shift in political strategy in the late 20th century to make greater use of public opinion polling and focus on more devisive issues, socioeconomic changes that have shifted the balance of power between various groups meaning old political coalitions that maintained common ground have become unworkable, and a general stagnation in society that has driven many to anger and despair. Most tech giants don't particularly desire such polarization. Zuckerberg certainly didn't set out to build the optimal platform for middle aged women to share conspiracy theories. The fact that despite best efforts pretty much every internet platform's algorithm converges towards polarizing content means either no one knows how to make an internet platform that isn't toxic, or no one actually wants such a platform. Either way, any attempt to remedy polarization by regulating big tech is doomed to failure. If we can't find a way to solve the important problems while our society is polarized, they're not going to get solved at all.

encryptluks2 4y ago

Probably because they are more interested in virtue signaling and have no understanding of technology. Rather than actually make broad anti-monopoly rules, which quite frankly would be targeted more at Apple, they instead go on witchunts cause of conservative "censorship".

blinding-streak 4y ago

Well here's one potential reason: Lobbying. https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/07/21/apple-has-become-a-lobbying-powerhouse-amid-growing-antitrust-scrutiny https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/07/21/apple-has-become-...

missedthecue 4y ago

Because there is nothing worth regulating. There is ample competition everywhere that matters. Some made the more novice mistake of equating "big ass company" with "monopoly" but soon found out that such a misdiagnosis doesn't bring them to any meaningful conclusions.

ladyattis 4y ago

I think the biggest problem with regulating modern tech companies or most companies today is the fact that they've adapted to the old rules as to minimize triggering those laws being used by regulatory bodies. So you'll see companies buy up a firm but effectively keeping it an independent entity or leaving just enough competition in the market that they can effectively shape what their competitors will or won't do. It can have a similar result to the trusts and cartels of the past but without much of the problems of defection (in cartel situations), government intervention, and overhead. It seems to me that a whole new legal theory needs to be explored on the question rather than just forging ahead with the assumptions of the past that more regulation will prevent the concentration of capital whether directly or indirectly. Perhaps, the opposite situation needs to be applied such as making laws that encourage smaller firms to be created or make big companies pay the externalized costs of infrastructure in some novel way (ex. Amazon depends greatly on the interstate highway system to deliver their goods, so why shouldn't they pay more for the upkeep?).