4 ms·

This matters about as much as the US defying the UN. Chrome needs to be spun out.

by anotherhue 3y ago

troyvit 3y ago
Heh, yeah or the UN defying anybody who is a member of their own security council.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Considers who was on the other side of the military conflict in which the first, only, and still active UN military command was involved as a direct party and... Not sure I understand your point.
  - HideousKojima 3y ago
    China at the time referred to the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan. And the USSR's delegation to the UN was boycotting the UNSC entirely (and immediately began using their power to prevent any further UNSC resolutions regarding Korea being passed as soon as they stopped boycotting).
nerdponx 3y ago
Has there ever been an anti-trust suit on the grounds that an actor is using their market dominance to subvert a standards process/body? Is there any legal precedent or standing for such a thing in the US or elsewhere?
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  I don't think web standards work that way. Often times we'll see things get deployed and implemented before they become standards anyway. And it's not as if W3C has any authority. But even if W3C had any authority, Google and Apple would just pay off every seat.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  No, but there should have been one when Microsoft infiltrated the standards committee and forced the Open XML (OOXML) "standard": https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-29194320070828 https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-29194320070828 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-standard/microsoft-wins-document-format-standards-battle-idUKL0179716920080401 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-standard/micros... https://www.computerworld.com/article/2548569/ecma-approves-microsoft-s-office-open-xml-as-a-standard.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2548569/ecma-approves-...
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Not a perfect example, but the UK CMA took issue with the removal of third party cookies from Chrome because of concern about anti competitive impact on digital advertising and managed to extract some pledges from Google. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-regulator-accepts-googles-revised-pledges-browser-cookies-2022-02-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-regulator-accepts-google...
warning26 3y ago
I like the idea of spinning Chrome out, but how would that work in practice? Seems like making a browser isn’t profitable at all, and so the hypothetical Chrome Browser Corporation would probably quickly turn to evil tracking schemes as well.
- wolpoli 3y ago
  The hypothetical Chrome Browser Corporation will likely become like Firefox, trying not upset whoever gives them a search deal.
  - nani8ot 3y ago
    In what ways does Mozilla try not to upset Google? They do implement ad blocking/anti fingerprinting. Mozilla obviously has to continue setting Google as the default search engine.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  Just so we're on the same page, it has some precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
- jwells89 3y ago
  If Blink and Chrome were to be spun out, it should probably be into something like a non-profit organization funded by sponsors, with a model similar to that of Blender. The only difference is that given Blink/Chrome's dominance, it'd be necessary to bar Alphabet and other companies with overwhelming power in web tech from becoming sponsors to help prevent conflict of interest. This could have the effect of normalizing corporate investment in FOSS web engines and browsers, which could benefit Mozilla as well.
user982 3y ago
> This matters about as much as the US defying the UN. Are those accidentally reversed?
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  No. The US regularly defies and ignores the UN with no consequences. One example is that the US doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court.
  - user982 3y ago
    Right. So the US defying the UN matters in terms of real-world effect, but the UN defying the US doesn't. In the analogy here, wouldn't the W3C be the UN defiantly making toothless proclamations that Chrome (the US) can simply ignore? That would be my understanding of it, since "mattering about as much" implies not mattering at all.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    The ICC is independent of the UN. Also its treaty based so you have to consent to its juridsiction at least once (or have the UN security council give it juridsiction) so of course there are no consequences for countries that haven't signed up. Anyways this is a really bad example (you are probably trying to reference invade hauge act, but even still that doesn't fit. US does ignore UN in other ways, but the ICC isnt an example of that.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
  - calgarymicro 3y ago
    The UN and the ICC are two different organizations (maybe you're thinking of the ICJ?), and the US isn't party to the Rome Statute either. That said, yes this law is dumb.

This matters about as much as the US defying the UN. Chrome needs to be spun out.

troyvit 3y ago

Heh, yeah or the UN defying anybody who is a member of their own security council.

dragonwriter 3y ago
Considers who was on the other side of the military conflict in which the first, only, and still active UN military command was involved as a direct party and... Not sure I understand your point.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  China at the time referred to the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan. And the USSR's delegation to the UN was boycotting the UNSC entirely (and immediately began using their power to prevent any further UNSC resolutions regarding Korea being passed as soon as they stopped boycotting).

nerdponx 3y ago

Has there ever been an anti-trust suit on the grounds that an actor is using their market dominance to subvert a standards process/body? Is there any legal precedent or standing for such a thing in the US or elsewhere?

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
I don't think web standards work that way. Often times we'll see things get deployed and implemented before they become standards anyway. And it's not as if W3C has any authority. But even if W3C had any authority, Google and Apple would just pay off every seat.
anonymousiam 3y ago
No, but there should have been one when Microsoft infiltrated the standards committee and forced the Open XML (OOXML) "standard": https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-29194320070828 https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-29194320070828 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-standard/microsoft-wins-document-format-standards-battle-idUKL0179716920080401 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-standard/micros... https://www.computerworld.com/article/2548569/ecma-approves-microsoft-s-office-open-xml-as-a-standard.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2548569/ecma-approves-...
spacebanana7 3y ago
Not a perfect example, but the UK CMA took issue with the removal of third party cookies from Chrome because of concern about anti competitive impact on digital advertising and managed to extract some pledges from Google. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-regulator-accepts-googles-revised-pledges-browser-cookies-2022-02-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-regulator-accepts-google...

warning26 3y ago

I like the idea of spinning Chrome out, but how would that work in practice? Seems like making a browser isn’t profitable at all, and so the hypothetical Chrome Browser Corporation would probably quickly turn to evil tracking schemes as well.

wolpoli 3y ago
The hypothetical Chrome Browser Corporation will likely become like Firefox, trying not upset whoever gives them a search deal.
- nani8ot 3y ago
  In what ways does Mozilla try not to upset Google? They do implement ad blocking/anti fingerprinting. Mozilla obviously has to continue setting Google as the default search engine.
anotherhue 3y ago
Just so we're on the same page, it has some precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
jwells89 3y ago
If Blink and Chrome were to be spun out, it should probably be into something like a non-profit organization funded by sponsors, with a model similar to that of Blender. The only difference is that given Blink/Chrome's dominance, it'd be necessary to bar Alphabet and other companies with overwhelming power in web tech from becoming sponsors to help prevent conflict of interest. This could have the effect of normalizing corporate investment in FOSS web engines and browsers, which could benefit Mozilla as well.

user982 3y ago

> This matters about as much as the US defying the UN. Are those accidentally reversed?

bryanlarsen 3y ago
No. The US regularly defies and ignores the UN with no consequences. One example is that the US doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court.
- user982 3y ago
  Right. So the US defying the UN matters in terms of real-world effect, but the UN defying the US doesn't. In the analogy here, wouldn't the W3C be the UN defiantly making toothless proclamations that Chrome (the US) can simply ignore? That would be my understanding of it, since "mattering about as much" implies not mattering at all.
- bawolff 3y ago
  The ICC is independent of the UN. Also its treaty based so you have to consent to its juridsiction at least once (or have the UN security council give it juridsiction) so of course there are no consequences for countries that haven't signed up. Anyways this is a really bad example (you are probably trying to reference invade hauge act, but even still that doesn't fit. US does ignore UN in other ways, but the ICC isnt an example of that.
anotherhue 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- calgarymicro 3y ago
  The UN and the ICC are two different organizations (maybe you're thinking of the ICJ?), and the US isn't party to the Rome Statute either. That said, yes this law is dumb.