There’s a rule banning “self-preferencing.” That’s when platforms push their often inferior, in-house products and hide superior products made by their rivals
Wow, I can see Microsoft fighting this one tooth and nail. It's basically their whole business model
When the Parasite Class objects so vehemently to something that is impacting their obscene profits and sociopathic control, you know that something is being done correctly.
The Internet is a perfect example of why we can't have nice things, or rather, why anarchy could never work.
That's what the Internet used to be, and what it largely is. And it worked quite well, until people realized the Internet could be monetized beyond just being an extension of your brand.
Now it's quite obvious that regulation is necessary. People are idiots and they can't be trusted with a dopamine-injection-button run by greedy corporations. That gives those companies really unprecedented power.
There’s a rule banning “self-preferencing.” That’s when platforms push their often inferior, in-house products and hide superior products made by their rivals.
He wouldn't if it applied to him. Unfortunately, reddit is not a gatekeeper in the sense of the DMA and due to its management it's also unlikely to ever reach that position :)
Unless the saga continues, they didn't "hide" the competition, they paywalled their access.
There's nothing wrong, per se, with charging access to the API. Where they went wrong was setting an exorbitant price. That was clearly anti-competitive. They knew the pricing they set wouldn't be sustainable to any third party developers. Then he started shit talking the Apollo developer...
Well it may or may not be wrong. One of the measures would be, can Reddit afford the price if it also had pay for the same access? If the answer is no, then it might be considered preferential treatment to their own app. However ianal so there could be a carve out for that.
When you buy something, the seller pays a VAT tax (something about 17% to 23% of your purchase, depending on the country).
If I'm a French company and I sell something to a customer in Finland (we would be both in the EU) taxes would be paid in either France or Finland (it depends on the kind of thing I'm selling and the kind of customer).
If I understand correctly, they want to tax digital services in the place where the work is actually generated. So, in France.
Correct. Amazon for example: everything that is sold via Amazon in Europe is taxed in Ireland. Even if a product which is available on Amazon is produced in France, stored in a French Amazon warehouse and shipped to a French customer. Just because it's possible, they pay the reduced taxes in Ireland for such a deal. That needs to be fixed.
Ahh now I understand the reasoning, and I completely agree.
To be fair, some things are already taxed in the place where work is created, regardless of the company headquarters. E.g. event tickets (VAT is always applied in the country where the event is taking place)
European elections have this advantage that the morons don’t even go to vote nor know what is going on.
It’s the sole reason why is it going so good, obfuscation. Anything outside of the country is too much too grasp for the rightists.
There’s some kind of deep moral to this and I am not sure it is a good one
When the UK was in the EU, UKIP was their largest party. For France, Le Pen's National Front party was the largest. And they aren't alone. There's a number of right wing EU parties.
And it's due to get worse, if we bring data into it. Many countries in the EU are swinging to the right. Polling is indicating right wing parties will have a solid majority in the EU parliament this year.
Well it’s true where I live. Those elections are seen as unimportant and not many care and even skip them with a tendency for more… intellectually, EU versed ppl to vote
25% attendance in eu elections vs 45% for country parliament. Most recent elections improved 40 to 65
On meta’s while it is flagrant screw you, they may have a valid argument. Human beings don’t actually need any kind of social media to survive, ergo it is a convenience or luxury that could be charged for.
I’m certainly not agreeing with them, but they may be banking on that style argument and their ungodly amount of money to fight it.
Yes. But we have all gotten pretty used to things on the Internet not costing money. If they start costing money, many people will either not want to or be able to use them.
Really the regulation should be about requiring social media companies to interoperate similar to regulation on the phone companies. You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.
Then is if the social media companies want to charge money people could change to another platform without losing their contacts.
Basically the only reason I still have facebook is to talk to chat with people on there that I can't contact through other means.
You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.
Boy have I got some news for you about something called "the fediverse...."
You absolutely can charge for social media, just not the way Facebook does. They're not charging for the service, just for not spying on you, which is illegal under GDPR.
To some people in some places Facebook is actually necessary in order to have a social life or run a business.
We all know Facebook would die if it charged for access, because it would lose its ubiquity that makes it necessary for some people.
What would actually be good is if instead of charging for privacy, they charged for enhanced features - similar to how discord charges for Nitro (I am not defending discord, just using their payment model as an example)
The problem with that payment model though is then you have to actually develop features people want to pay for. And we all know Facebook is creatively bankrupt.
It's not that simple. I don't like Facebook & I don't like Facebook. Still Facebook collects data about me. Tell me why shouldn't Facebook be stopped? Here data is new oil. Facebook is mining for that Oil on my land. You wouldn't allow oil company to mine oil on your land right.
Lol, it's funny how you cry free market. Free market doesn't not mean violating someone's privacy. No free market can exist without regulations & standards. Without regulations exploitation takes place.
This smells like sour grapes to me, just like when people say to boycott Starbucks and then in the same breath say their coffee sucks. These companies became behemoths because people find a lot of value in the products and services they offer. Failing to acknowledge that truth just makes you sound out of touch.
people find a lot of value in the products and services they offer
This is definitely true to some degree, but there imo is also another side to this.
Yes, they there are underlying problems/demands that they solve, but they definitely also create and shape those since psychology sadly works extremely effective. And they really try their hardest to manipulate customers.
Another aspect is that they might have originally created that value and given the users what they wanted, which got them in the position they are in now. Sometimes even operating at a loss to bully competition out of the market. But once they achieved this dominant position enshittification commences. Which wouldn't be that much of an issue, if they wouldn't also often prevent competition from growing enough to be able to compete.
Example Google search: The demand for a way to navigate the web is real and google fulfilled it best, which made them huge. Timejump to the present: the demand is still the same, but now google shows you what they want you to see and pay billions to be the default search engine to hinder any competition from gaining any traction.
I mean you SHOULD boycott starbucks for their business practices. But you can't say their coffee sucks. They don't have coffee. They have "diabetic inducing coffee flavored sugarwater"
I think the point being made here is that many people clearly enjoy what Starbucks offers. So, saying they suck is preaching to the choir. The only people listening to that are the people you aren't trying to convince. If you want an impact, suggest an alternative that will make those people happy. To do that, start with an understanding of the value Starbucks brings them. Failing that, you are just signaling that your thinking isn't for them. They'll just ignore you and continue to happily give Starbucks their money.
It's a bit more complicated: In your example, if someone from the outgroup (e.g. a liberal person or in general someone who isn't as mindless and as purely driven by hedonism) suggests that "they" should prefer a different coffee chain, they'll dig in and go to Starbucks even more because by doing that, you gave them another tool to feel like they're rebelling against the "elites", i.e. going to Starbucks went from something they did because they were uneducated to a new source of their personal and group identity.
There's no easy solution to bring people to live in their own best interest when they are so adamant to make every little aspect of their lifestyle into a culture war battleground. It's exactly as hard and prone to fail, as getting people out of a cult.
Yeah, put another way, make something controversial and people will pick sides and stop their thinking then and there. If anyone, including themselves, thinks "Starbucks sucks" then they're the enemy and should be disproven.
I'd argue there's a great solution. Respect the people that go to Starbucks and their opinion. Understand it. And then, from a place of compassion and understanding see how you can help them. People respond a lot better to that. But I'll admit that in this climate everyone is making things an us vs them controversy. So it'll be hard when others are trying to create that divide and you are trying to bridge it.
I recommend the latest book by Peter Pomerantsev about the English guy who was in charge of counter-propaganda against Nazi Germany in WW2. I’m not through with it yet but it’s crazy what methods he used to get through to the German soldiers and general public.
Basically he found out the reason why people follow obvious evil guys like Hitler, Trump, and Putin is because their showy evilness allows their followers to live out their own worst tendencies without feeling guilt.
The only way to tackle that was to clandestinely give them a way to live out their best tendencies and reward them for it, because he thought that people enjoy being good even more than being evil.
Although in the case of MAGA I guess it’s harder to find such a thing than with Nazi foot soldiers back in the days.
Many more go because it is convenient due to the drive-through and also because it has probably driven the local coffee shops out of business, but would definitely take another, better option if it presented itself.
Which they are. A smaller (but still pretty big) chain called Scooter's opened up here and Starbucks has taken a huge hit.
So it's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.
Yeah! That's precisely what I mean. Scooters is making an impact because they understand what people want and are providing a reasonable alternative that makes those kinds of people happy. They're not just saying: Starbucks is bad, don't go there.
It's a timeline. tech companies have become much worse, and people warning about them more vocal, so the lower educated classes who mindlessly use their products have (partially) woken up to the real motives of companies who create "free to use" products, i.e. data mining.
In the EU, we have a lot of dummies who we call "remote controlled", who want to simulate a version of the US lifestyle (huge cars, celebrity adulation, eating like shit, single-issue voting, vapidness). These mainly teenagers but regrettably also low-class adults.
Those are also the people who still use social networks because they have nothing else going on and are too lazy to invest their free time in worthwhile activities. So it's a class issue, the social underbelly of the EU is remote controlled by US culture and corporations almost like the social underbelly of the US is.
Americans found lots of values in Starbucks coffee because Americans have no concept of coffee that's simultaneously black, not bitter, not acidic, and sweet. It would be wrong to blame Starbucks for that, they're a symptom, not the cause, but yes their coffee sucks. As it does everywhere else in the US, the country that thought that percolators were a mighty fine idea.
(And yes I know you guys invented the Aeropress. Good thing, good job, good coffee (with proper beans), now also use it).
I know but it feels like it's getting more popular especially with younger people the teenagers and young teens that I know tend to be overwhelming drawn towards apple
I feel like trying to make the big fish act in our interest and not theirs is fighting windmills.
Better kill the big fish.
Not directly on topic - note how all the socialist revolutionaries always start with killing the smallest fish and hate it the most. The big ones they try to convert.
Genuine question: how do we actually "kill the big fish" though? Majority are going to continue to use big tech out of convenience and because they dont care much.
I think in the end it all comes down to putting power back into the hands of regulators — power that corporate America has been slowly and steadily eroding for the last 40 years.
A more powerful regulatory state could start enforcing the anti-trust laws we already have on the books by breaking up the massive tech monopolies. Once that's done, new regulations and new legislation against anti-consumer practices are needed, but those will only work if the punishments scale high enough to work as an actual deterrent against the multi-billion dollar tech giants.
Of course, we'd also need massive, MASSIVE campaign finance and lobbying reforms so that monied interested aren't able to sabotage the system all over again.
Or we could just bring back the guillotine... that would probably do the trick too.
You forgot to say that regulatory apparatus should have much fewer points of failure. That is, it should be made stronger and more efficient, but it should be radically contracted. It's bigger than needs be.
By points of failure I mean opportunities for strong entities to make regulations work for monopolies\oligopolies.
No quick way. There are too many regulations which are enforced badly and abused to actually support that "big fish". Make them fewer and make the punishment swift and unavoidable and hard. And split a few of the worst offenders into parts each in one specific area - Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta are all good candidates.
I do get the argument though that if no improvement will ever be good enough for some people, then what incentive do they have to change for the better if it won't make a difference to those people either way?
To this articles question on why apple should care about EUs 500 million citizens when they have trillions of Dollars. Well given that the USA only has 333 millions I would say they should care a lot.
As of the second quarter of fiscal year 2024, the Americas held around 41 percent of the revenue, whereas Europe came in second with roughly over 26.5 percent.
And I think a lot of that revenue is in the Middle East to be honest. Those are poorer parts of the world, but with very bad culture of demonstrative consumption.
Still, how big this is for Apple is important only for Apple users. While creating a culture of not fucking around is important for everyone.
So I'd say the EU should cut Apple down right now. They've made a lot of bad faith and faux compliance actions. Just ban them. I'm confident there's much more than one reason justifying that legally. No, that company doesn't help innovation, education and whatever else.
They’ve used the same segments for a long time and presumably maintain them for consistency, so I think it really just tells us that they used to sell very little there. India, in particular, has been a large growth market for Apple in the past couple of years, but is still just thrown in with “Europe.”
I can’t speak for Apple, but every company I’ve worked for has split their region reporting as soon as one of the traditionally smaller regions gets big enough
Apple needs to realize that the EU doesn’t care if they left. They barely pay any taxes in the EU and don’t even create much economic value. Since most Apple jobs in the EU are in retail, businesses administration and tax evasion. They don’t produce shit here.
I think that the EU is fully aware that what makes those extra powerful is network effect. And, once they're gone, something else pops up in their place. The case of Germans using WhatsApp for example would become inconvenient for them for fifteen whole minutes, then they'd jump into an alternative, and business as usual, without Faecesbook/Merda meddling.
We know, the EU also told meta to behave. Meta then threatened to leave and everyone was like "ok, when?". Because we'll just switch to the next best thing. So meta behaved. Sort of, it's an ongoing thing.
Meta’s not behaving in the slightest. Their entire business model is illegal under the GDPR. They will continue maliciously complying for as long as they can. Just like Apple. Fight tooth and nail for as long as it takes.
eff.org
Hot