5 ms·

The government desperately needs to step in and regulate these automated "destroy your business" practices.

gkoberger 4y ago
Totally. It should be illegal for Edge, Chrome and other browsers to take any measures, such as a little warning, in an attempt protect users from malware. I see no way that getting the government involved in this could go badly.
- axxto 4y ago
  No one implied that it should be illegal to warn anybody. However, it should be illegal to operate a large-scale service like this without offering some kind of proper communication and prompt action, which isn't unreasonable considering they're notorious for destroying someone's livelihood for no reason. Keep in mind that the reason this happens isn't because of "faulty AI automated systems": the reason this happens is because these companies choose to save pennies by not offering proper support channels and recourse. Those saved pennies make the difference between a 2-hour outage and literally bankrupting you for no reason at all.
- protomyth 4y ago
  I should have some way to resolve the issue outside of the automation. Barring that, I should be able to sue them libel.
- ok123456 4y ago
  Another anti-trust suit perhaps.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Yes that worked out well last time. Microsoft was broken up and they were forced to unbundled their browser from Windows. Also, politicians never go after companies for biased reasons and we can count on the government with more power not to abuse it.
    - cma 4y ago
      Also I suppose companies never go after politicians for biased reasons, with legalized bribery of campaign contributions as the tool.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Yes, but no company has a “monopoly on violence” - the government does. Given a choice, a powerful government can do far more damage than Microsoft.
    - ok123456 4y ago
      It made Microsoft sweat pretty good in the late-90s. They had to behave a little better, but not doing anything too anti-competitive, during a critical juncture of the internet's growth and adoption, while the anti-trust proceedings dragged on. Just because there was no AT&T style divestiture at the end, doesn't mean there were no positive externalities.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And because of that, a million flowers bloomed and now we have dozens of browsers engines and not one dominant player controlled by a large tech company…
        ok123456 4y ago
        Without that pressure, they could have pursued a more aggressive strategy with IIS and server technologies. Outlook was only mildly annoying. They could have been much more aggressive there. Microsoft did and does a lot more than Windows and Internet Browsers.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        I think the biggest thing that came out of that anti-trust case is the publishing of specs for various file formats and protocols used by Microsoft software.
- quantified 4y ago
  </sarcasm>?
  - raunak 4y ago
    I wonder what the last sentence of his comment implies.
    - quantified 4y ago
      That he understands how competent and benign government is.

Totally. It should be illegal for Edge, Chrome and other browsers to take any measures, such as a little warning, in an attempt protect users from malware. I see no way that getting the government involved in this could go badly.

axxto 4y ago
No one implied that it should be illegal to warn anybody. However, it should be illegal to operate a large-scale service like this without offering some kind of proper communication and prompt action, which isn't unreasonable considering they're notorious for destroying someone's livelihood for no reason. Keep in mind that the reason this happens isn't because of "faulty AI automated systems": the reason this happens is because these companies choose to save pennies by not offering proper support channels and recourse. Those saved pennies make the difference between a 2-hour outage and literally bankrupting you for no reason at all.
protomyth 4y ago
I should have some way to resolve the issue outside of the automation. Barring that, I should be able to sue them libel.
ok123456 4y ago
Another anti-trust suit perhaps.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Yes that worked out well last time. Microsoft was broken up and they were forced to unbundled their browser from Windows. Also, politicians never go after companies for biased reasons and we can count on the government with more power not to abuse it.
  - cma 4y ago
    Also I suppose companies never go after politicians for biased reasons, with legalized bribery of campaign contributions as the tool.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Yes, but no company has a “monopoly on violence” - the government does. Given a choice, a powerful government can do far more damage than Microsoft.
  - ok123456 4y ago
    It made Microsoft sweat pretty good in the late-90s. They had to behave a little better, but not doing anything too anti-competitive, during a critical juncture of the internet's growth and adoption, while the anti-trust proceedings dragged on. Just because there was no AT&T style divestiture at the end, doesn't mean there were no positive externalities.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And because of that, a million flowers bloomed and now we have dozens of browsers engines and not one dominant player controlled by a large tech company…
      - ok123456 4y ago
        Without that pressure, they could have pursued a more aggressive strategy with IIS and server technologies. Outlook was only mildly annoying. They could have been much more aggressive there. Microsoft did and does a lot more than Windows and Internet Browsers.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      I think the biggest thing that came out of that anti-trust case is the publishing of specs for various file formats and protocols used by Microsoft software.
quantified 4y ago
</sarcasm>?
- raunak 4y ago
  I wonder what the last sentence of his comment implies.
  - quantified 4y ago
    That he understands how competent and benign government is.