25 ms·

What a difference four years makes

106 points by edent 3y ago

detourdog 3y ago
My problem is that an open web removes gatekeepers. The way the EU is making rules is ham fisted and technically limiting on development of ideas. If the EU simply focused on the open web and privacy they could stay away from these weird rules regarding sizes of markets. I think the the article is disingenuous by equating a platform's popularity with a need for rules to hamper that platform's functionality. The internet/web is our open resource for communication. I'm all for any all rules that maintain the individual rights to publish and subscribe on the internet. The EU should focus on open protocols and privacy. I think it's a mistake to equate the internet with an App Store market place. The internet is a place for individual freedoms and app stores are for businesses.
- NeoTar 3y ago
  Isn't the whole point about size of market to encourage openness and competition? If I'm a five person start-up, compliance with rules can act as a barrier to entry, and keep a market to only established players. If certain rules only kick in when I am established enough to be able to comply, then that's encouraging smaller entities at the expense of larger. Saying one should encourage open protocols and privacy is all well and good, but how can one do that, and more importantly, how can one enforce it when abusive companies purposefully act contrary to that.
  - groestl 3y ago
    I know it's off topic, and ycombinator's rules discorage meta discussions, but I just want to say at least once, that in contrast to other discussion boards, here I can trust that somebody will come up with a well versed response to an evenly thought out post, pointing out the gap, if one exists. So kudos to you both.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Yes, it is about openness and competition. What I'm saying is that the current climate is over-valuing the App Store market when the real openness and competition should be happening on the open web. I see this caused by the financial world's excitement for the app Store economy. This same "irrational exuberance" happened during the .com cycle. Developers/entrepreneurs should be focused on the open web as the delivery mechanism which bypasses all app Store rules. This is freedom to me. Regulators should be watching the "public space" of the internet and worry less about the "private space" of the app Store economy and platform. The regulators should make it is simple to publish on port 80 and port 443. I think we have that. A five person start up should do everything they can to minimize the amount of regulated data they collect. I would worry less how an abusive company might act and more on how to delivery a good experience with one's product. How abusive can a big company be on the internet?(excluding ISPs). My point is that organic communities on the internet is where freedom happens. Anyone expecting to get freedom from a product in an app Store is mistaken. App stores can provide amazing convenience. Apple essentially built a global store that handled taxes and regulations seamlessly for it's developers. The process is so seamless everyone thinks it should be free.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      That stance is incredibly naive. Seriously if the FANGs of the world can literally spend billions to keep you addicted to their content do you think it makes an ounce of difference that you can publish your blog on port 443?
      - detourdog 3y ago
        It does to me. I don't know why you think FANGs have any effect on technology I may work on. If the world can maintain access to each other directly over 80 and 443 than people who value narrowcasting over broadcasting can freely ignore the FANGs. ISPs on the other hand can be sneaky.
        Nevermark 3y ago
        > people who value narrowcasting over broadcasting can freely ignore the FANGs It is very difficult and costly in time or other resources for most people and businesses to "ignore the FANGs" Parasitical businesses are generally not just parasitical. They balance providing real value with how much they can extract, in complex ways. People who want other people to watch their high quality content want to be found by as many people as would benefit from their content. So they post on Youtube which gets them their audience, but now they are helping Youtube funnel their viewers to trash content and to be surveilled. It is all a sticky rat's nest.
brainzap 3y ago
[flagged]
- OJFord 3y ago
  Prominent Apple (industry? Mainly Apple I think) commentator. I think the author's using it more as a device to say that you should care about/agree with what he previously said, to make similar points himself, rather than that you should care about Gruber's opinion changing.
- trustno2 3y ago
  He created Markdown a long time ago. He blogs about Apple.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dangus 3y ago
It’s not hard to understand the change of heart. Fanboys agree with the stance of their chosen company no matter what hypocrisy or logical fallacy that might invite. When it’s Apple versus Facebook, John is on Apple’s side. When it’s Apple versus the EU, John is on Apple’s side. He’s one of the most overrated and pro-corporation tech personalities out there. And his website’s formatting on mobile is inexcusable.
- nickpeterson 3y ago
  The recent App Store changes prompted by the EU should demonstrate these companies really do need some pressure from governments to improve competition. I just want to run full Mac OS X on an iPad Air :(
  - detourdog 3y ago
    No idea if this would work or which version of OS X you want to run. https://www.cultofmac.com/717078/run-mac-os-x-iphone-ipad-without-jailbreaking/ https://www.cultofmac.com/717078/run-mac-os-x-iphone-ipad-wi...
  - blowski 3y ago
    I would prefer the market to be exerting that pressure. But big tech has done such a good job of erecting barriers to entry, while governmetns have done such a bad job of anti-monopoly regulation, that steps like this are now necessary.
    - dangus 3y ago
      I think this idea of the market having the ability to be a benevolent force is so overplayed. It’s literally never been that way. The gilded age had to be ended by regulation just like the tech gilded age needs to be ended by regulation. The thing about the market is that it doesn’t care if people starve or if every company on the planet merges into a super conglomerate.
DragonStrength 3y ago
I believe he is saying Facebook isn't entitled to tracking, but consumers aren't entitled to Facebook either. Especially given Apple has not relented on the anti-tracking provisions, I don't see the contradiction, especially since one is an interaction between a government and a company and the other is the interaction between two companies. Which is not to say he is right.
- senorrib 3y ago
  He is right, though.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
spacecadet 3y ago
Ive been capturing and analyzing all of my network traffic for years , slowly and methodically blocking ports of ad trackers. Burn it all down.
- hobs 3y ago
  Blocking ports? Not familiar with any ports advertisers use specifically, most are happy with 80/433.
  - woliveirajr 3y ago
    probably meant "ip" or URLs
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - spacecadet 3y ago
      "But apparently, making up ports is addictive, because today, RFC 1700 and the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) have defined no less than 1,023 official "well-known ports," and many other unofficial ones to boot. And those are just a subset of a grand total of 65,535 ports." https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/... Do you know how your firewall works? I run physical ones. The OS on your Mac is basically wide open. An "ip" "domain" "url" can all change, you own the ports...
  - fransje26 3y ago
    You won't get tracked if you block ports 80/433/8443, that's a fact.
- randomname93857 3y ago
  Sorry for deviating from OP subject -any pointers to a good (https/ssl) traffic analysis guide?
blowski 3y ago
I just learned this is _that_ Betteridge > Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
- abhinavk 3y ago
  I though he was some 19th century journalist in the early days of newspaper industry.
senorrib 3y ago
“ In particular, Apple – and Facebook – are gatekeepers because they “are digital platforms that provide an important gateway between business users and consumers – whose position can grant them the power to act as a private rule maker, and thus creating a bottleneck in the digital economy”. Spotify is not in that position.” How is Spotify not in that position? I see no difference between Facebook, Apple and Spotify in this case, except for the fact that they gatekeep different things.
- yorwba 3y ago
  Spotify exceeds neither the revenue threshold of 7.5 billion euros nor the market cap threshold of 75 billion euros that is part of the definition of gatekeepers in Chapter II, Article 3 of the Digital Markets Act. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925#d1e1494-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Even though they're a gateway between business users and condumers, they're not considered an important gateway because the music industry isn't big enough. (Or maybe Spotify's share of the EU music market is just too small.)
  - boxed 3y ago
    That threshold is precisely the problem in the first place. It is a weird and arbitrary limit that "just by coincidence" happens to target a bunch of really huge American companies. Personally I hope it is that they just put that limit at the high number to warm up and then ratchet it down. But then they should say so.
    - GTP 3y ago
      Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. But I think there is no scientific way of setting such limit, so any limit you come up with will be arbitrary.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. The usual case is that the limit is certainly the result of political discussion, but not arbitrary. What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else. In political contexts involving purchasing, this is called "single-sourcing". In contexts involving persecution, it is more frowned upon, and I'm not aware of a general name for the practice. But it's not a different practice.
gary_0 3y ago
What's crazy is that in the century before the modern Internet, radio and TV stations, newspapers, and magazines somehow survived just fine selling "dumb" advertising (sometimes supplemented with end-user fees). What we didn't have back then were multiple advertising companies (that insist on being called "tech" companies) perched at the top of the S&P500 with higher market caps than God. Yes, having disgustingly intimate knowledge of the thoughts and actions of billions of people is very lucrative, but why the fuck was that ever allowed to be a legal business model?
- boo-ga-ga 3y ago
  > newspapers, and magazines somehow survived selling "dumb" advertising I think it's pretty clear that at least these (including their online versions) cannot survive in masse. We can argue around the reasons for this, but that's what happening.
  - gary_0 3y ago
    The pre-Internet media landscape flourished for a century with "dumb" ads. Surveillance capitalism is not inevitable; we allowed it to happen. (Sorry, I ninja-edited what you quoted to be clearer.)
    - cvwright 3y ago
      The problem is the adpocalypse. Everyone stopped paying for ads that weren’t the super-targeted kind. I was supervising a MS student on a project trying to mess with the moderately-targeted ads of the day. We watched this happen in real time as it wrecked our hopes of ever writing our paper. All of the ads we were studying got replaced overnight with much cheaper generic ads for cars or airlines or big-brand liquor. And then websites started going out of business.
      - boo-ga-ga 3y ago
        > The problem is the adpocalypse. Everyone stopped paying for ads that weren’t the super-targeted kind. Yeah, I kind of get it. What's the point for paying for a regular untargeted print or web banner if for a little more you can get extremely targeted one. And this drove the market to the current state. But I guess with the Internet appearance and it being powered by ads, people just got used to free content. And this is the biggest conceptual issue, as now we don't even want to pay $1.99 for an online newspaper despite the fact it's extremely cheap in comparison to literally anything.
ghusto 3y ago
Aaah, Gruber, _that_ apologist shill. He’ll contort in any way necessary to fit Apple’s narrative that day, because that’s easy when you lack a spine.
- boxed 3y ago
  In this case he was actually defending Facebook weirdly enough.
  - manmal 3y ago
    He might be sour because the EU has been bothering Apple quite a lot lately.
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
I really enjoyed this 2023 piece[0], linked from his home page. [0] https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-rot-economy/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-rot-economy/
begueradj 3y ago
Every now and then, I hear someone getting killed just because he looked at the murderer (mauvais regard, in French). We also know our reactions and feelings if a stranger walks around our house and looks through the windows (we won't tell him "keep looking in, we have nothing to hide). But these tech dinosaurs are looking everywhere around and within us, still we feed them.
sharpshadow 3y ago
It’s like high-frequency trading for best value ad spots worldwide with huge amounts of data generated and connected. Like trading it starts very easy but ends up in 1ms ping difference. There is no way out, the system is build that way. The sheep get milked.
- wsintra2022 3y ago
  Cows get milked, sheep get skinned.
  - kevindamm 3y ago
    I thought they just get fleeced, they keep their skin?
    - drewcoo 3y ago
      Sheep are shorn but some are also skinned.
  - sharpshadow 3y ago
    Sheep get milked as well. I mean u could find that out very quickly.. The cheese made with sheep milk is called Pecorino. Very tasty cheese :)
- specialist 3y ago
  That's a terrific analogy, obv once articulated. Thank you.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ankit219 3y ago
Seems like a false equivalence and trying to forcefit two things. It's not a binary choice as the writer puts it. Apple's tracking transparency gave users a choice whether to enable tracking/analytics outside the app usage. (inside the app, any company would know what the user is doing with right analytics stack). Every affected company had a choice to either continue offering the same product or make changes to their model. Any affected company could have just said, "Hey, we need personalized ads to pay our costs and that is what keeps this service free. If you think it's intrusive, we respect the choice, but we cannot offer it for free." Apple could not have stopped it or delisted the app for changing the business model. Here, EU is basically denying that option to Facebook. > In competition, actions which are legal when you’re not a monopoly become illegal when you are a monopoly. This sentence represents basic lack of understanding of the monopolistic behavior. See Qualcomm's antitrust case which they won on appeal in both EU and US which they could not have won if this sentence was true.

106 points by edent 3y ago

My problem is that an open web removes gatekeepers. The way the EU is making rules is ham fisted and technically limiting on development of ideas. If the EU simply focused on the open web and privacy they could stay away from these weird rules regarding sizes of markets. I think the the article is disingenuous by equating a platform's popularity with a need for rules to hamper that platform's functionality. The internet/web is our open resource for communication. I'm all for any all rules that maintain the individual rights to publish and subscribe on the internet. The EU should focus on open protocols and privacy. I think it's a mistake to equate the internet with an App Store market place. The internet is a place for individual freedoms and app stores are for businesses.

NeoTar 3y ago
Isn't the whole point about size of market to encourage openness and competition? If I'm a five person start-up, compliance with rules can act as a barrier to entry, and keep a market to only established players. If certain rules only kick in when I am established enough to be able to comply, then that's encouraging smaller entities at the expense of larger. Saying one should encourage open protocols and privacy is all well and good, but how can one do that, and more importantly, how can one enforce it when abusive companies purposefully act contrary to that.
- groestl 3y ago
  I know it's off topic, and ycombinator's rules discorage meta discussions, but I just want to say at least once, that in contrast to other discussion boards, here I can trust that somebody will come up with a well versed response to an evenly thought out post, pointing out the gap, if one exists. So kudos to you both.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- detourdog 3y ago
  Yes, it is about openness and competition. What I'm saying is that the current climate is over-valuing the App Store market when the real openness and competition should be happening on the open web. I see this caused by the financial world's excitement for the app Store economy. This same "irrational exuberance" happened during the .com cycle. Developers/entrepreneurs should be focused on the open web as the delivery mechanism which bypasses all app Store rules. This is freedom to me. Regulators should be watching the "public space" of the internet and worry less about the "private space" of the app Store economy and platform. The regulators should make it is simple to publish on port 80 and port 443. I think we have that. A five person start up should do everything they can to minimize the amount of regulated data they collect. I would worry less how an abusive company might act and more on how to delivery a good experience with one's product. How abusive can a big company be on the internet?(excluding ISPs). My point is that organic communities on the internet is where freedom happens. Anyone expecting to get freedom from a product in an app Store is mistaken. App stores can provide amazing convenience. Apple essentially built a global store that handled taxes and regulations seamlessly for it's developers. The process is so seamless everyone thinks it should be free.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    That stance is incredibly naive. Seriously if the FANGs of the world can literally spend billions to keep you addicted to their content do you think it makes an ounce of difference that you can publish your blog on port 443?
    - detourdog 3y ago
      It does to me. I don't know why you think FANGs have any effect on technology I may work on. If the world can maintain access to each other directly over 80 and 443 than people who value narrowcasting over broadcasting can freely ignore the FANGs. ISPs on the other hand can be sneaky.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        > people who value narrowcasting over broadcasting can freely ignore the FANGs It is very difficult and costly in time or other resources for most people and businesses to "ignore the FANGs" Parasitical businesses are generally not just parasitical. They balance providing real value with how much they can extract, in complex ways. People who want other people to watch their high quality content want to be found by as many people as would benefit from their content. So they post on Youtube which gets them their audience, but now they are helping Youtube funnel their viewers to trash content and to be surveilled. It is all a sticky rat's nest.

brainzap 3y ago

[flagged]

OJFord 3y ago
Prominent Apple (industry? Mainly Apple I think) commentator. I think the author's using it more as a device to say that you should care about/agree with what he previously said, to make similar points himself, rather than that you should care about Gruber's opinion changing.
trustno2 3y ago
He created Markdown a long time ago. He blogs about Apple.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dangus 3y ago

It’s not hard to understand the change of heart. Fanboys agree with the stance of their chosen company no matter what hypocrisy or logical fallacy that might invite. When it’s Apple versus Facebook, John is on Apple’s side. When it’s Apple versus the EU, John is on Apple’s side. He’s one of the most overrated and pro-corporation tech personalities out there. And his website’s formatting on mobile is inexcusable.

nickpeterson 3y ago
The recent App Store changes prompted by the EU should demonstrate these companies really do need some pressure from governments to improve competition. I just want to run full Mac OS X on an iPad Air :(
- detourdog 3y ago
  No idea if this would work or which version of OS X you want to run. https://www.cultofmac.com/717078/run-mac-os-x-iphone-ipad-without-jailbreaking/ https://www.cultofmac.com/717078/run-mac-os-x-iphone-ipad-wi...
- blowski 3y ago
  I would prefer the market to be exerting that pressure. But big tech has done such a good job of erecting barriers to entry, while governmetns have done such a bad job of anti-monopoly regulation, that steps like this are now necessary.
  - dangus 3y ago
    I think this idea of the market having the ability to be a benevolent force is so overplayed. It’s literally never been that way. The gilded age had to be ended by regulation just like the tech gilded age needs to be ended by regulation. The thing about the market is that it doesn’t care if people starve or if every company on the planet merges into a super conglomerate.

DragonStrength 3y ago

I believe he is saying Facebook isn't entitled to tracking, but consumers aren't entitled to Facebook either. Especially given Apple has not relented on the anti-tracking provisions, I don't see the contradiction, especially since one is an interaction between a government and a company and the other is the interaction between two companies. Which is not to say he is right.

senorrib 3y ago
He is right, though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

spacecadet 3y ago

Ive been capturing and analyzing all of my network traffic for years , slowly and methodically blocking ports of ad trackers. Burn it all down.

hobs 3y ago
Blocking ports? Not familiar with any ports advertisers use specifically, most are happy with 80/433.
- woliveirajr 3y ago
  probably meant "ip" or URLs
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - spacecadet 3y ago
    "But apparently, making up ports is addictive, because today, RFC 1700 and the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) have defined no less than 1,023 official "well-known ports," and many other unofficial ones to boot. And those are just a subset of a grand total of 65,535 ports." https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/... Do you know how your firewall works? I run physical ones. The OS on your Mac is basically wide open. An "ip" "domain" "url" can all change, you own the ports...
- fransje26 3y ago
  You won't get tracked if you block ports 80/433/8443, that's a fact.
randomname93857 3y ago
Sorry for deviating from OP subject -any pointers to a good (https/ssl) traffic analysis guide?

blowski 3y ago

I just learned this is _that_ Betteridge > Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

abhinavk 3y ago
I though he was some 19th century journalist in the early days of newspaper industry.

senorrib 3y ago

“ In particular, Apple – and Facebook – are gatekeepers because they “are digital platforms that provide an important gateway between business users and consumers – whose position can grant them the power to act as a private rule maker, and thus creating a bottleneck in the digital economy”. Spotify is not in that position.” How is Spotify not in that position? I see no difference between Facebook, Apple and Spotify in this case, except for the fact that they gatekeep different things.

yorwba 3y ago
Spotify exceeds neither the revenue threshold of 7.5 billion euros nor the market cap threshold of 75 billion euros that is part of the definition of gatekeepers in Chapter II, Article 3 of the Digital Markets Act. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925#d1e1494-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Even though they're a gateway between business users and condumers, they're not considered an important gateway because the music industry isn't big enough. (Or maybe Spotify's share of the EU music market is just too small.)
- boxed 3y ago
  That threshold is precisely the problem in the first place. It is a weird and arbitrary limit that "just by coincidence" happens to target a bunch of really huge American companies. Personally I hope it is that they just put that limit at the high number to warm up and then ratchet it down. But then they should say so.
  - GTP 3y ago
    Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. But I think there is no scientific way of setting such limit, so any limit you come up with will be arbitrary.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. The usual case is that the limit is certainly the result of political discussion, but not arbitrary. What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else. In political contexts involving purchasing, this is called "single-sourcing". In contexts involving persecution, it is more frowned upon, and I'm not aware of a general name for the practice. But it's not a different practice.

gary_0 3y ago

What's crazy is that in the century before the modern Internet, radio and TV stations, newspapers, and magazines somehow survived just fine selling "dumb" advertising (sometimes supplemented with end-user fees). What we didn't have back then were multiple advertising companies (that insist on being called "tech" companies) perched at the top of the S&P500 with higher market caps than God. Yes, having disgustingly intimate knowledge of the thoughts and actions of billions of people is very lucrative, but why the fuck was that ever allowed to be a legal business model?

boo-ga-ga 3y ago
> newspapers, and magazines somehow survived selling "dumb" advertising I think it's pretty clear that at least these (including their online versions) cannot survive in masse. We can argue around the reasons for this, but that's what happening.
- gary_0 3y ago
  The pre-Internet media landscape flourished for a century with "dumb" ads. Surveillance capitalism is not inevitable; we allowed it to happen. (Sorry, I ninja-edited what you quoted to be clearer.)
  - cvwright 3y ago
    The problem is the adpocalypse. Everyone stopped paying for ads that weren’t the super-targeted kind. I was supervising a MS student on a project trying to mess with the moderately-targeted ads of the day. We watched this happen in real time as it wrecked our hopes of ever writing our paper. All of the ads we were studying got replaced overnight with much cheaper generic ads for cars or airlines or big-brand liquor. And then websites started going out of business.
    - boo-ga-ga 3y ago
      > The problem is the adpocalypse. Everyone stopped paying for ads that weren’t the super-targeted kind. Yeah, I kind of get it. What's the point for paying for a regular untargeted print or web banner if for a little more you can get extremely targeted one. And this drove the market to the current state. But I guess with the Internet appearance and it being powered by ads, people just got used to free content. And this is the biggest conceptual issue, as now we don't even want to pay $1.99 for an online newspaper despite the fact it's extremely cheap in comparison to literally anything.

ghusto 3y ago

Aaah, Gruber, _that_ apologist shill. He’ll contort in any way necessary to fit Apple’s narrative that day, because that’s easy when you lack a spine.

boxed 3y ago
In this case he was actually defending Facebook weirdly enough.
- manmal 3y ago
  He might be sour because the EU has been bothering Apple quite a lot lately.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

I really enjoyed this 2023 piece[0], linked from his home page. [0] https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-rot-economy/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-rot-economy/

begueradj 3y ago

Every now and then, I hear someone getting killed just because he looked at the murderer (mauvais regard, in French). We also know our reactions and feelings if a stranger walks around our house and looks through the windows (we won't tell him "keep looking in, we have nothing to hide). But these tech dinosaurs are looking everywhere around and within us, still we feed them.

sharpshadow 3y ago

It’s like high-frequency trading for best value ad spots worldwide with huge amounts of data generated and connected. Like trading it starts very easy but ends up in 1ms ping difference. There is no way out, the system is build that way. The sheep get milked.

wsintra2022 3y ago
Cows get milked, sheep get skinned.
- kevindamm 3y ago
  I thought they just get fleeced, they keep their skin?
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    Sheep are shorn but some are also skinned.
- sharpshadow 3y ago
  Sheep get milked as well. I mean u could find that out very quickly.. The cheese made with sheep milk is called Pecorino. Very tasty cheese :)
specialist 3y ago
That's a terrific analogy, obv once articulated. Thank you.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ankit219 3y ago

Seems like a false equivalence and trying to forcefit two things. It's not a binary choice as the writer puts it. Apple's tracking transparency gave users a choice whether to enable tracking/analytics outside the app usage. (inside the app, any company would know what the user is doing with right analytics stack). Every affected company had a choice to either continue offering the same product or make changes to their model. Any affected company could have just said, "Hey, we need personalized ads to pay our costs and that is what keeps this service free. If you think it's intrusive, we respect the choice, but we cannot offer it for free." Apple could not have stopped it or delisted the app for changing the business model. Here, EU is basically denying that option to Facebook. > In competition, actions which are legal when you’re not a monopoly become illegal when you are a monopoly. This sentence represents basic lack of understanding of the monopolistic behavior. See Qualcomm's antitrust case which they won on appeal in both EU and US which they could not have won if this sentence was true.