Last week the six biggest operators – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and ByteDance – were forced to toe the line on competition, advertising, interoperability and more. It was a gamechanger
The act doesn’t apply to all tech companies, only to those with either a market capitalisation of more than €75bn (£64bn), or having at least 45 million users and €7.5bn annual turnover in the EU.
In effect, this means just Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and ByteDance (owner of TikTok). The fact that five of the six are US companies has, of course, led to complaints that the pesky Europeans have it in for poor defenceless American giants. Cue violins.
The act imposes serious obligations: companies will have to allow third-party apps and app stores on their platforms; provide transparent advertising data; allow users to easily uninstall pre-installed software or apps; enable interoperability between different messaging services, social networks, and other services, allowing users to communicate seamlessly across platforms; and be more transparent about how their algorithms rank and recommend content, products and services.
It also prohibits certain practices by gatekeepers: favouring their own services over third-party ones, for example; engaging in self-preferential activities; and using private data from business users to compete against them. In other words, an end to tech business as usual.
Sweet. What the corrupt US departments couldn’t - and refused to - do.
Member that time micro$quash was in court for a decade to prove they weren’t a monopoly despite being a monopoly, and then after all that the court declared they were a monopoly? Member? And then absolutely sweet fuck-all happened and they’re still out there monoply-ing without any care or hindrance? Yeah.
You remember how all the US politicians are funded by the same huge corporations and rich people who all benefit from the regulators doing nothing but pretending to care?
Remember how the politicians pander to Americans by blaming rich people for all of life’s problems and saying they’ll make them pay their fair share, but those politicians have multiple houses and blatantly conduct insider trading every day, but Americans still vote for them time after time?
I’d like to say you could just not use their products, but that means you have to replace windows with some other os, not buy a major manufacturer cell phone, or do much else 🤷
This right here. It is so far gone, and deeply entrenched into how society works at fundamental levels, that it is impossible to avoid any mega corporations and their influence on how we live (not just tech companies too).
I know that pointing fingers does nothing to help, but this really is Reagan’s fault with his so-called trickle down economics.
I hear what you’re saying. I counter with low effort LLM reply. I don’t live by what LLMs say, but they generate some good starting points to go and do much more narrow research.
I don’t think it’s entirely Reagan’s fault, I think the idea existed before him. He just sold the idea to the American public. So I guess I could fault him for either believing in it, or just saying he did to support the desires of the wealthy.
this really is Reagan’s fault with his so-called trickle down economics
CLAUDE 3:
“Did any American politicians, economists, or general capitalism principles regarding ‘trickle down economics’ exists before president Reagan?
What examples of trickle down economics existed before him?
Did he invent the idea, or just the phrase?”
The concept of “trickle-down economics” predates President Ronald Reagan and his administration’s economic policies. However, the specific phrase “trickle-down economics” became more widely used during Reagan’s presidency to describe his economic policies, which were based on the idea that reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy would stimulate economic growth, creating more jobs and wealth that would eventually “trickle down” to the broader population.
Examples of trickle-down economic principles before Reagan include:
The “Horse and Sparrow” theory, attributed to the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in the early 19th century, which suggested that if the rich were allowed to get richer, their increased consumption would benefit the working class.
In the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, advocated for lower taxes on the wealthy and businesses, arguing that it would spur economic growth.
The “Laissez-Faire” economic policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which favored minimal government intervention and regulation, with the belief that unfettered capitalism would benefit society as a whole.
While Reagan did not invent the underlying economic theories, his administration’s policies and rhetoric, particularly the use of the phrase “trickle-down economics,” brought the concept to the forefront of public discourse and became closely associated with his presidency.
It’s important to note that the effectiveness and fairness of trickle-down economics have been heavily debated among economists and policymakers, with critics arguing that it primarily benefits the wealthy and does not necessarily lead to broad-based economic growth or income redistribution.
The comment was meant to be syndical and sarcastic.
Of course it’s not representative of the entirety.
But it does express my frustration with political hypocrisy and insider trading. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find me any politicians that haven’t engaged in that at some point, to some degree. One of the famous ones that comes to mind is Nancy pelosi, but she is not alone, and this is not particular to one party or another, they both definitely engage in it, it’s been well documented and is irrefutable.
If you look past one party or another, you’d see that it’s a broken system. The fact that it’s legal for our elected representatives to conduct in activities that would otherwise be illegal for the general population is outrageous, and the fact that we all know they do it and they are the only ones that can control it in police themselves is also outrageous. It’s the only self-serving career that I can think of that is completely unchecked, has unlimited benefits for only 4 years of service, and the only ones that can control it or police it is themselves.
but that means you have to replace windows with some other os
Any problems with installing Linux? Try openSUSE if you don’t like Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian, which are the most often recommended ones. It’s the distribution most polished for that abstract “average user” that I’ve seen. And it’s one of the traditional mainstream ones and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. (Btw all those Arch-based schoolboy distributions are trash and I don’t use them, I also don’t use Arch btw. I use Void.)
These are good suggestions for tech people IMO. I was thinking more general population that just wants to buy a product and use it as is. My mom isn’t going to get a laptop and then install linux. I’d have to. 😇
I’ve never heard of BQ before, so that was an interesting mention. I didn’t look hard enough to find out if it was available in the US.
I think the overall sentiment I’m conveying is that as a consumer, I’d like to just stop doing business with entities I deem bad faith (which is easy to say until you need a new TV and the ‘good’ company TV is twice as expensive). There’s not a lot of choices for average people in this category (big tech). You’ll be exposed to them almost out of necessity. I suppose appropriate regulation for those giant companies, and the US wont, but at least the EU will.
I also wonder if MS/Google/Apple were EU based corps, if they would take the same actions? I can’t say how much of an average EU country’s economy a company like Microsoft would be, but just the thought of how much that would be makes me think they’d get preferential treatment in which ever country that would be. I’d have to look at brands like BMW and see how they did doing that MPG scandal, things like that.
It actually did, solve it, unironically. The concern was that Microsoft was going to de facto take over the HTML standard and make it so that you had to use Internet Explorer and proprietary Microsoft extensions if you wanted to browse the web, eliminating all competition.
Now, more than 20 years later, Internet Explorer is defunct. Microsoft’s current browser is built on Chromium, an open source engine that was created by one of its competitors. If anything it’s Google that’s now the problematic one.
This happened in 2009, when IE had a market share of 56% and declining. IE is (arguably) defunct because it sucked, not because of a one-time, court-mandated popup.
Then Mozilla started not sucking, then in 2008 Chrome came out and in 2009 when the popup was mandated, IE had declined to 56% market share from 90% highs years earlier.
Back then Chrome didn’t exist and they didn’t implement the pop up, just assigned some overview and opened some APIs.
However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.
Seems to me they continued to take actions in 2009 as a result of their loss in 2001. “Some overview” continued after the case was decided. Unless there was a subsequent court case I’m unaware of?
Well, in some sense this is architecturally correct. That corps from one country may lobby its politicians, but the network effect would be broken by other important countries’ politicians not going along with that.
Looking like that - there’s nothing US institutions could do in the context of human nature, and for EU we can say “about goddamn time”.
Lol sure. First of all “lobby” is a very transparent euphemism for “bribe”. In second place the lack of proper rules in the US is creating behemoths that are very difficult to deal wIth. These companies are richer than nations and will be impossible to contain.
What the corrupt US departments couldn’t - and refused to - do.
I heard an interesting podcast interview with someone from one of those departments.
It sounds like they just genuinely don’t have enough funding, as in enough staff, to do their job properly.
Nothing corrupt within the departments - they’re doing the best they can with what they’ve been given . Congress needs to raise taxes and fund the departments better and then there will be proper regulation in the USA.
If course, congress can’t do hardly anything at all so that’s never going to happen. At least not at a federal level.
Remember when Nokia was king? Yup, lack of regulations then. I’m not saying it’s not a coincidence, but it certainly could be. I am glad to see Nokia’s resurgence in the infrastructure area in tech though.
Did Nokia even have official digital markpetplace for their phones? I only remember silly 3rd party stores selling ringtones and backgrounds through text messages. Maybe when smartphones became a thing and when iOS and Android phones were already dominating the industry.
If I recall correctly some Nokia phones even supported sideloading with data cable.
Their phones where also generally fairly durable with replacable batteries and chargers (3rd party options being available for both) and from what I gather fairly easy to open and repair.
Sweet. What the corrupt US departments couldn’t - and refused to - do.
Member that time micro$quash was in court for a decade to prove they weren’t a monopoly despite being a monopoly, and then after all that the court declared they were a monopoly? Member? And then absolutely sweet fuck-all happened and they’re still out there monoply-ing without any care or hindrance? Yeah.
US, you fucked that up royal. As usual.
You remember how all the US politicians are funded by the same huge corporations and rich people who all benefit from the regulators doing nothing but pretending to care?
Remember how the politicians pander to Americans by blaming rich people for all of life’s problems and saying they’ll make them pay their fair share, but those politicians have multiple houses and blatantly conduct insider trading every day, but Americans still vote for them time after time?
I’d like to say you could just not use their products, but that means you have to replace windows with some other os, not buy a major manufacturer cell phone, or do much else 🤷
This right here. It is so far gone, and deeply entrenched into how society works at fundamental levels, that it is impossible to avoid any mega corporations and their influence on how we live (not just tech companies too).
I know that pointing fingers does nothing to help, but this really is Reagan’s fault with his so-called trickle down economics.
I hear what you’re saying. I counter with low effort LLM reply. I don’t live by what LLMs say, but they generate some good starting points to go and do much more narrow research.
I don’t think it’s entirely Reagan’s fault, I think the idea existed before him. He just sold the idea to the American public. So I guess I could fault him for either believing in it, or just saying he did to support the desires of the wealthy.
CLAUDE 3:
“Did any American politicians, economists, or general capitalism principles regarding ‘trickle down economics’ exists before president Reagan? What examples of trickle down economics existed before him? Did he invent the idea, or just the phrase?”
The concept of “trickle-down economics” predates President Ronald Reagan and his administration’s economic policies. However, the specific phrase “trickle-down economics” became more widely used during Reagan’s presidency to describe his economic policies, which were based on the idea that reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy would stimulate economic growth, creating more jobs and wealth that would eventually “trickle down” to the broader population.
Examples of trickle-down economic principles before Reagan include:
The “Horse and Sparrow” theory, attributed to the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in the early 19th century, which suggested that if the rich were allowed to get richer, their increased consumption would benefit the working class.
In the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, advocated for lower taxes on the wealthy and businesses, arguing that it would spur economic growth.
The “Laissez-Faire” economic policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which favored minimal government intervention and regulation, with the belief that unfettered capitalism would benefit society as a whole.
While Reagan did not invent the underlying economic theories, his administration’s policies and rhetoric, particularly the use of the phrase “trickle-down economics,” brought the concept to the forefront of public discourse and became closely associated with his presidency.
It’s important to note that the effectiveness and fairness of trickle-down economics have been heavily debated among economists and policymakers, with critics arguing that it primarily benefits the wealthy and does not necessarily lead to broad-based economic growth or income redistribution.
That’s a minority of US politicians and you know it. Not to mention it’s a minority of a minority of those politicians that get elected.
We got exactly what we voted for and that’s the truly maddening thing.
Part of that is definitely manipulation of representation (i.e. gerrymandering) but not all of it.
The comment was meant to be syndical and sarcastic.
Of course it’s not representative of the entirety.
But it does express my frustration with political hypocrisy and insider trading. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find me any politicians that haven’t engaged in that at some point, to some degree. One of the famous ones that comes to mind is Nancy pelosi, but she is not alone, and this is not particular to one party or another, they both definitely engage in it, it’s been well documented and is irrefutable.
If you look past one party or another, you’d see that it’s a broken system. The fact that it’s legal for our elected representatives to conduct in activities that would otherwise be illegal for the general population is outrageous, and the fact that we all know they do it and they are the only ones that can control it in police themselves is also outrageous. It’s the only self-serving career that I can think of that is completely unchecked, has unlimited benefits for only 4 years of service, and the only ones that can control it or police it is themselves.
Now that I think about it, Johnny Harris did a really good report about insider trading by Congress.
Any problems with installing Linux? Try openSUSE if you don’t like Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian, which are the most often recommended ones. It’s the distribution most polished for that abstract “average user” that I’ve seen. And it’s one of the traditional mainstream ones and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. (Btw all those Arch-based schoolboy distributions are trash and I don’t use them, I also don’t use Arch btw. I use Void.)
BQ is nice. It is a major manufacturer though.
These are good suggestions for tech people IMO. I was thinking more general population that just wants to buy a product and use it as is. My mom isn’t going to get a laptop and then install linux. I’d have to. 😇
I’ve never heard of BQ before, so that was an interesting mention. I didn’t look hard enough to find out if it was available in the US.
I think the overall sentiment I’m conveying is that as a consumer, I’d like to just stop doing business with entities I deem bad faith (which is easy to say until you need a new TV and the ‘good’ company TV is twice as expensive). There’s not a lot of choices for average people in this category (big tech). You’ll be exposed to them almost out of necessity. I suppose appropriate regulation for those giant companies, and the US wont, but at least the EU will.
I also wonder if MS/Google/Apple were EU based corps, if they would take the same actions? I can’t say how much of an average EU country’s economy a company like Microsoft would be, but just the thought of how much that would be makes me think they’d get preferential treatment in which ever country that would be. I’d have to look at brands like BMW and see how they did doing that MPG scandal, things like that.
Then let’s hope for regulators. I’m in the second world anyway, so don’t know how much of an effect those would be.
I mean, we got this “choose your default browser” screen for a few years. That solved it, right?
It actually did, solve it, unironically. The concern was that Microsoft was going to de facto take over the HTML standard and make it so that you had to use Internet Explorer and proprietary Microsoft extensions if you wanted to browse the web, eliminating all competition.
Now, more than 20 years later, Internet Explorer is defunct. Microsoft’s current browser is built on Chromium, an open source engine that was created by one of its competitors. If anything it’s Google that’s now the problematic one.
This happened in 2009, when IE had a market share of 56% and declining. IE is (arguably) defunct because it sucked, not because of a one-time, court-mandated popup.
IE sucked since the beginning, that’s not the reason it died.
Everything sucked back then.
Then Mozilla started not sucking, then in 2008 Chrome came out and in 2009 when the popup was mandated, IE had declined to 56% market share from 90% highs years earlier.
It happened in 2001, you’re off by 8 years.
Back then Chrome didn’t exist and they didn’t implement the pop up, just assigned some overview and opened some APIs.
The popup came in 2009.
Seems to me they continued to take actions in 2009 as a result of their loss in 2001. “Some overview” continued after the case was decided. Unless there was a subsequent court case I’m unaware of?
The 2009 dispute was in the EU, to begin with.
The comment I was responding to was specifically about the United States’ actions.
Well, in some sense this is architecturally correct. That corps from one country may lobby its politicians, but the network effect would be broken by other important countries’ politicians not going along with that.
Looking like that - there’s nothing US institutions could do in the context of human nature, and for EU we can say “about goddamn time”.
Just a weird thought.
Lol sure. First of all “lobby” is a very transparent euphemism for “bribe”. In second place the lack of proper rules in the US is creating behemoths that are very difficult to deal wIth. These companies are richer than nations and will be impossible to contain.
Home country politicians are easier to bribe. This creates sort of relativity of the same kind that prevents too large wars from happening.
I heard an interesting podcast interview with someone from one of those departments.
It sounds like they just genuinely don’t have enough funding, as in enough staff, to do their job properly.
Nothing corrupt within the departments - they’re doing the best they can with what they’ve been given . Congress needs to raise taxes and fund the departments better and then there will be proper regulation in the USA.
If course, congress can’t do hardly anything at all so that’s never going to happen. At least not at a federal level.
At a state level though? Maybe that could work.
Remember when Nokia was king? Yup, lack of regulations then. I’m not saying it’s not a coincidence, but it certainly could be. I am glad to see Nokia’s resurgence in the infrastructure area in tech though.
Did Nokia even have official digital markpetplace for their phones? I only remember silly 3rd party stores selling ringtones and backgrounds through text messages. Maybe when smartphones became a thing and when iOS and Android phones were already dominating the industry. If I recall correctly some Nokia phones even supported sideloading with data cable.
Their phones where also generally fairly durable with replacable batteries and chargers (3rd party options being available for both) and from what I gather fairly easy to open and repair.