4 ms·

How about regulating Big Tech? Which was done with AT&T before Reagan and caused UNIX, C, Open-Source and Open-Documentation. And encouraging and requiring ope

How about regulating Big Tech? Which was done with AT&T before Reagan and caused UNIX, C, Open-Source and Open-Documentation. And encouraging and requiring open-source software development in Europe, founded by non-profit organizations and government. With requirements and control. The base for solution is readily available with Linux and BSD. Our politicians and CEOs only think in short terms. As consumers do :( We can ban or tax things, like shipping Laptops with proprietary operating-systems. Declare, that the pre-installed operating-system must be open-source with {GPL, MIT, BSD} and fulfill standards. If not? Fine. Ship it without an operating-system. And teach kids at school about scale of software and vendor lock-in. Every monopoly starts with being lazy and just grasping the first solution...

ecb_penguin 1y ago
[flagged]
- sshine 1y ago
  > this anti-consumer, anti-business viewpoint will help noone It helps regulators. And it does protect consumers, in some ways. Although it protects the common good more, which people may disagree about. It just also removes a lot of choices, because the level of compliance makes production not affordable. For example, the EU imposes a lot of rules on electric kettles; safety, eco design / power limitation (saving 4.8--8.7 TWh per year), restriction of hazardous substances. These are perfectly reasonable requirements. Perfectly reasonable death by bureaucracy. You can't easily buy a toxic kettle that might explode and will keep water constantly boiling in the EU. But also, it functions as a market barrier. I'm not sure what factors contribute exactly, but it's practically impossible to get an electric kettle with anything but a bimetallic thermometer, which eventually wears down. Doesn't matter the price. Whereas kettles in China have all kinds of fancy materials (e.g. glass) that don't respect eco design and can be programmed in all sorts of eco unfriendly ways.
- sublinear 1y ago
  How are those ideas anti-consumer or anti-business? For a very long time now the operating system has been an app delivery platform for both businesses and consumers, not an innovative technology in itself. Most apps are already built on more open source than proprietary code. Most infrastructure is already running linux. The purpose of regulation would simply be to better maintain these relationships with foundational pieces of software. I don't think even AT&T ever owned copper mines. Imagine a world where the quality of copper in your city was so terrible that you couldn't make a call ~15% the time because of hand wringing about cost or pseudo-philosophizing about big bad government overreach. That's the world we're living in right now with cybersecurity incidents, businesses unintentionally reinventing the wheel, consumers being duped into scams, etc.
  - hammyhavoc 1y ago
    It's almost certainly someone attempting to debate via an LLM.
    - ecb_penguin 1y ago
      You're cooked if you can't tell the difference between a person and an LLM. > Autistic and ADHD. Not terribly socially apt Is this why you thought I was an LLM?
      - hammyhavoc 1y ago
        You are cooked if this is how you debate and discuss as a human being. n.b. "almost certainly"
        ecb_penguin 1y ago
        > You are cooked if this is how you debate and discuss as a human being. Critical thinking is more important than tone. Also you don't need to share your medical conditions with people. Most people don't do that...
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
chermi 1y ago
Ah yes, ban and regulate your way to innovation. That's certainly going to work. And of course, you threw in Reagan. You'll certainly get upvotes, but nothing else.
- ho_schi 1y ago
  Because it works? Regulations are for people. And are applied upon companies. They have a probable side effect, very wealthy persons don’t get extremely rich by harming everyone. If that means I can install Linux on a laptop? Fine. Replace a battery? Fine. I’m not ruined if I got sick? Fine. Wealthy persons don’t need to be afraid that all other people start getting desperate? Fine. Breathing clean air? Fine. I favor regulation over splitting monopolies. Because a split doesn’t prevent it to happen again. If we split {Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon…} the smaller companies will start the same stuff again. PS: Sometimes things fire back? Or it seems like it fires back. The Cookie-Directive for example. Sadly companies use malicious compliance as business opportunity. There are now companies with a business model entirely relying on serving cookies for others and storing it centrally. Otherwise we see how big the problem actually is because they need to show what they do…
  - beardedwizard 1y ago
    If it worked Europe wouldn't be behind in tech and tech investment.
    - gr8beehive 1y ago
      Behind in the opinion of some chronically online tech power user. Your high tech is behind the tech of 10 generations from now. Just as meaningless a comparison. It’s unfortunate so many so poorly understand the ramifications of physics. Ah, one of billions. Belief this opinion of yours is relevant in any way is cute in “the child is clearly an idiot” kind of way.
    - JBlue42 1y ago
      I keep hearing this but what does it mean to be 'behind'? Behind what? What actual innovation are we seeing from Silicon Valley that is improving life for humans? The EU has its faults but at least it's willing to take on big corporations. What does Google 'create' these days - other than vast swathes of ad data to sell people? How is AirBnB even a tech company or Uber? There's too much rent-seeking, gamifying, and destructive real world effects of lack of regulation that even some can help people. We've been through this before with industrialization in the modern world - some benefits, many of which go to a small percentage of people; many detriments, which harm all (such as pollution). Also, 'tech investment' is such BS these days. Infinite venture capital (or at least in ZIRP days) that has led to little real 'innovation', just more BS gamified adtech. And now the US is ripping down any realistic science R&D. It's Europe's moment to take the reins or lose the opportunity. You don't Softbank or some blood-stained oil money from UAE to do that.

ecb_penguin 1y ago

[flagged]

sshine 1y ago
> this anti-consumer, anti-business viewpoint will help noone It helps regulators. And it does protect consumers, in some ways. Although it protects the common good more, which people may disagree about. It just also removes a lot of choices, because the level of compliance makes production not affordable. For example, the EU imposes a lot of rules on electric kettles; safety, eco design / power limitation (saving 4.8--8.7 TWh per year), restriction of hazardous substances. These are perfectly reasonable requirements. Perfectly reasonable death by bureaucracy. You can't easily buy a toxic kettle that might explode and will keep water constantly boiling in the EU. But also, it functions as a market barrier. I'm not sure what factors contribute exactly, but it's practically impossible to get an electric kettle with anything but a bimetallic thermometer, which eventually wears down. Doesn't matter the price. Whereas kettles in China have all kinds of fancy materials (e.g. glass) that don't respect eco design and can be programmed in all sorts of eco unfriendly ways.
sublinear 1y ago
How are those ideas anti-consumer or anti-business? For a very long time now the operating system has been an app delivery platform for both businesses and consumers, not an innovative technology in itself. Most apps are already built on more open source than proprietary code. Most infrastructure is already running linux. The purpose of regulation would simply be to better maintain these relationships with foundational pieces of software. I don't think even AT&T ever owned copper mines. Imagine a world where the quality of copper in your city was so terrible that you couldn't make a call ~15% the time because of hand wringing about cost or pseudo-philosophizing about big bad government overreach. That's the world we're living in right now with cybersecurity incidents, businesses unintentionally reinventing the wheel, consumers being duped into scams, etc.
- hammyhavoc 1y ago
  It's almost certainly someone attempting to debate via an LLM.
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
    You're cooked if you can't tell the difference between a person and an LLM. > Autistic and ADHD. Not terribly socially apt Is this why you thought I was an LLM?
    - hammyhavoc 1y ago
      You are cooked if this is how you debate and discuss as a human being. n.b. "almost certainly"
      - ecb_penguin 1y ago
        > You are cooked if this is how you debate and discuss as a human being. Critical thinking is more important than tone. Also you don't need to share your medical conditions with people. Most people don't do that...
- ecb_penguin 1y ago

chermi 1y ago

Ah yes, ban and regulate your way to innovation. That's certainly going to work. And of course, you threw in Reagan. You'll certainly get upvotes, but nothing else.

ho_schi 1y ago
Because it works? Regulations are for people. And are applied upon companies. They have a probable side effect, very wealthy persons don’t get extremely rich by harming everyone. If that means I can install Linux on a laptop? Fine. Replace a battery? Fine. I’m not ruined if I got sick? Fine. Wealthy persons don’t need to be afraid that all other people start getting desperate? Fine. Breathing clean air? Fine. I favor regulation over splitting monopolies. Because a split doesn’t prevent it to happen again. If we split {Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon…} the smaller companies will start the same stuff again. PS: Sometimes things fire back? Or it seems like it fires back. The Cookie-Directive for example. Sadly companies use malicious compliance as business opportunity. There are now companies with a business model entirely relying on serving cookies for others and storing it centrally. Otherwise we see how big the problem actually is because they need to show what they do…
- beardedwizard 1y ago
  If it worked Europe wouldn't be behind in tech and tech investment.
  - gr8beehive 1y ago
    Behind in the opinion of some chronically online tech power user. Your high tech is behind the tech of 10 generations from now. Just as meaningless a comparison. It’s unfortunate so many so poorly understand the ramifications of physics. Ah, one of billions. Belief this opinion of yours is relevant in any way is cute in “the child is clearly an idiot” kind of way.
  - JBlue42 1y ago
    I keep hearing this but what does it mean to be 'behind'? Behind what? What actual innovation are we seeing from Silicon Valley that is improving life for humans? The EU has its faults but at least it's willing to take on big corporations. What does Google 'create' these days - other than vast swathes of ad data to sell people? How is AirBnB even a tech company or Uber? There's too much rent-seeking, gamifying, and destructive real world effects of lack of regulation that even some can help people. We've been through this before with industrialization in the modern world - some benefits, many of which go to a small percentage of people; many detriments, which harm all (such as pollution). Also, 'tech investment' is such BS these days. Infinite venture capital (or at least in ZIRP days) that has led to little real 'innovation', just more BS gamified adtech. And now the US is ripping down any realistic science R&D. It's Europe's moment to take the reins or lose the opportunity. You don't Softbank or some blood-stained oil money from UAE to do that.