3 ms·
There's probably a need for legislation here. It's completely normal and vital for competition that you can make things that are (adversarially) interoperable w
by solarkraft 4y ago
There's probably a need for legislation here. It's completely normal and vital for competition that you can make things that are (adversarially) interoperable with others in the physical realm and you can't really be stopped (as long as you don't just copy).
That's not really a thing once you involve software. It's trivial to lock things down using cryptography and constant changes, making any kind of interoperability entirely infeasible.
As far as I understand this is pretty unprecedented and very bad for an efficient market.
- sleepybrett 4y agoyeah good luck in getting legislation that makes the twitter backend a common carrier.
- mindslight 4y agoIt's straightforward anti-trust - currently Twitter-the-company is bundling Twitter-the-client-software with Twitter-the-service, using the market position of the latter to maintain the market position of the former.
- kweingar 4y agoIsn’t that almost every social app?
- mindslight 4y agoYes. Just because it's been normalized doesn't mean it ought to be that way.
- Faark 4y agoIdk, having other, especially adversarial, companies between service and a customer just sounds like a recipe for bad things being pushed. Like IE toolbars. Or addblock (i use it, but it certainly has societal downsides). Or all the things our ISP wants to do with our traffic. You'd need unimaginably well crafted policy for this to not go south and have us complain about the opposite shortly thereafter.