I personally don’t care about alternative app stores, but I know many do, especially here.
I really want two things:
* companies cannot engage in any activity a common person would consider “spying”, cannot take the data collected by users of that service and transfer it to another entity, and third parties may not aggregate data collected about persons for any reason. There are a million and one useful reasons to do each of these things, but companies have proven themselves morally bankrupt and should lose that ability. This would go beyond “opt-in”, just make it illegal or the impractical (e.g. it would require a notary, licensed broker, or lawyers on both sides to engage in the practice)
* digital “purchases” are transferrable and have all of the rights and privileges afforded to physical goods. The producer/consumer balance shifted completely in favor of the producer with digital goods. Terms need to be more favorable to the purchaser as well as protections following the dissolution of a digital marketplace.
I'd go further and apply something like the notary/broker approach to the collection of data. Types of data should be defined in law. Some (say, email address) would be "free" to collect, but subject to strict sharing requirements like you describe (e.g., you can ask anyone for their email address, but you can't do anything with it except use it yourself to contact them). Others (mailing address) would be allowed for certain purposes (e.g., you need to mail the person a package). Companies should expect regular audits and stiff financial penalties if they collect such data but cannot objectively demonstrate that they actually need it to perform a service they are providing to the person who provides it. (This means you can't collect someone's mailing address unless you actually need it to do a specific thing for that person; simply using it as input to your internal analytics isn't good enough.) Others (e.g., location tracking) would require an approval process akin to being licensed to transport hazardous waste or something, so that it would be straight-up illegal to collect such data without prior approval. That approval process would involve full public disclosure of all intended uses of the data. You can't collect sensitive data without telling everyone exactly what you're going to do with it.
A large portion of the data that is illegally shared should never have been collected in the first place.
> The DMA designates six tech companies as “gatekeepers” to the internet — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft — and limits these technology kingpins from engaging in anticompetitive tactics on their platforms, in favor of interoperability.
DMA seems like a no-brainer for those that support users’ freedom. Since DMA came into effect almost two years ago, can anyone comment on its effectiveness?
Side note, I’m glad the EU takes normal people’s rights seriously. Wish the US was a leader on this too.
Apple still indirectly controls what is distributed and charges developers outside their app store money[1]. So it hasn't been effective enough to actually open up the platform for arbitrary apps to be installed.
I object to this foul, tainted union. The children will have crossed toes and webbed eyes. God expressly forbids this in Romans: “Yea, unto thee I say, no man shall lay with an algorithmically-endowed data sucking Beast With A Billion Bucks as they would with a woman…shit, or with a guy, it’s 2025–evangelicals are off the rails, political leaders are depriving a suffering majority of life saving services while propping up a gilded minority, all manner of unsavory acts are being committed in My name, frankly I think it’s well past time I gave Adam and Steve my official blessing. You do you, as long as it’s all love, go with Me, God” (paraphrasing a bit at the end there)
Anyway, what was this originally about? Armageddon?
It's about as effective as the GDPR - which means very strong regulation and penalties on paper, but no actual enforcement of said penalties once you breach it - all bark and no bite.
(please, don't reply with that "enforcement tracker" link - a billion is nothing for Facebook and especially not when it's in exchange of 7 years of continuous and blatant breach of the regulation)
I have no data on enforcement but since it went into effect, every place I've worked has taken it very seriously so it has definitely had consequences, very positive ones in my opinion.
What do you mean not effective? I worked in a digital marketing/advertising company and we needed to re-architect our whole system to comply with GDPR, it was a pain in the ass for both backend team and analytics team.
That the GDPR is “all bark and no bite” is factually untrue.
As an example of a service that was forced to change to get in line with GDPR: Facebook.
For user profiling, they first tried to use their Terms of Service, then they tried claiming a legitimate interest, then they tried offering paid subscriptions, and now they are at the point where they somewhat degrade the experience of those refusing to be profiled. I'm not talking about the fines, I'm talking about EU citizens being able to use Facebook while refusing to give their consent for profiling. I'm also talking about the ability to download your data or to delete your data from their servers, which was also the outcome of GDPR.
Facebook has also received multiple GDPR-related fines, maybe it's not enough, but it's only going to get worse, as EU regulators are also eyeing them for the spread of election misinformation. Actually, Zuckerberg has been kissing Trump's ring because he's hoping for some protectionism from the US. He said so in his now infamous Joe Rogan podcast episode.
And for the DMA — well, Apple now allows alternative browser engines within the EU, as just one example.
So I just don't understand why people make this claim. The DPAs may be slow, but that's not a good argument. Law enforcement in general is slow. And the fact is that the GDPR is changing the Internet, which is undeniable.
Not in the EU myself but I don't think so. There's a specific entitlement that has to be granted and last time I looked nobody has ever done it.
I learned one interesting tidbit from the latest Ladybird progress report: apparently, in order for an engine to actually be eligible to get this entitlement, it actually has to have a higher than 90% WPT pass rate. I think it is absolutely fascinating that this is part of the criteria. The differences between the era of more-or-less free distribution on desktop platforms couldn't be more different than the totalitarian control of iOS and the slightly less restrictive control of Android. It almost feels like what happened with home computers was an accident, a circumstance that was only temporary and that once it is finally taken away we'll never get it back.
It's weird to think about. The evolving nature of computer security has definitely created some serious challenges for having a more open distribution model, but by and large nobody wants to try to solve that, and there's not much of an incentive to. The problem is, though, that closing down distribution doesn't just magically solve the problem of trust, it centralizes it to a single entity, with all of the many problems that comes with.
People, of course, seem to defend this practice tooth and nail. Like, it's not enough to just have the option of curated walled gardens: it's important to be forced to use them, because your agency could be used against you by other massive corporations, by coercing you to sidestep security measures. (Nevermind the fact that the existence of said abusive mega corporations is, in and of itself, a problem that should be dealt with directly...)
Meanwhile, I'm just blown away. I have an iPad with an M1 processor. It has virtualization capabilities. It could run VMs, if Apple would let it. Volunteers have gone great lengths despite JIT restrictions and sandboxing to make decent virtualization software for iOS, entirely free of charge. But instead, they updated iPadOS to explicitly remove the hypervisor framework in a major OS upgrade, and of course, it being an iPad, you can't even choose to downgrade it. Now I'm not saying running a desktop OS in a VM is an ideal experience for a tablet, but the damn thing has a keyboard cover and all manner of connectivity, it would be extremely useful to allow this, especially given how relatively powerful the device is. Yet, you can't.
And sure. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I largely don't buy Apple products anymore, but I have a few for various reasons. They're very nice pieces of hardware. But the thing is, the market isn't incentivized to offer alternatives to Apple. What Apple has accomplished with the App Store is absolutely unparalleled: 30% of all revenue. Everywhere, in every app. Perpetually. Forever. Holy Shit. And sure, there are technically exceptions, but let's face it: they play fast and loose with their own rules. When even Patreon is forced to pay 30% you know they are just going to push anyone with enough revenue into it with some rationale. So I personally struggle to believe that there will be alternatives if nothing is done. It's not a matter of people not being willing to buy viable alternatives, it's more a matter of nobody being able to sell them, because doing the arguably unfair thing profits hand-over-fist and nobody can fucking compete with that.
So we're here, bargaining with the richest company in the world, for the ability to be able to download a web browser that isn't Safari in a trenchcoat.
I don't like all EU regulation, but it's kind of unreal to watch this unfold and see how people actually defend this status quo. I still struggle to reconcile how people who consider themselves hackers or at least adjacent to hacker culture can see all of this and not feel dead inside.
> It almost feels like what happened with home computers was an accident, a circumstance that was only temporary and that once it is finally taken away we'll never get it back.
Home computers gave full control to the owners because there was no other choice. There was no internet, no way to push updates or hoover up data. Anything that happened on those machines had to be initiated by the user. They have been working on pulling all that back ever since always-on internet has become something that can basically be taken for granted.
The GDPR is very clear (despite those who profit from breaching it would like you to believe): consent for non-essential data collection/processing should be strictly opt-in. You can't opt-in by default, you can't use dark patterns to trick people to opt-in, and you can't degrade the experience to coerce people to opt in.
Yet by your own comment's admission, Facebook has tried multiple blatant breaches of the regulation, and is still in business and trying their latest iteration of pseudo-compliance, which means whatever enforcement there is, it's clearly not enough.
When it comes to the DMA, Apple is currently on track to receive a (very low) fine for not actually complying by still preventing developer from letting users know they can pay for apps/services outside the App Store for cheaper. So clearly the potential penalties and actual enforcement is low enough that Apple is (rightly) calling their bluff.
I can now use Facebook without being profiled for ads. I can also delete my account.
It took longer than expected, but it happened. The GDPR has forced Facebook and others to change.
People may want huge fines, but then the EU is accused of targeting US companies or suffocating innovation. I don't want fines necessarily, I want results.
What worries me is the way big tech is forced to build some kind of law book (they call their TOS) some kind of detective apparatus, some kind of kangaroo court and a model for punishing the citizen (user) which is not something anyone should want them to do including them. It is like the old time court where every decision is made though the lens of profit. It gets even more dystopian in a closed ecosystem.
This is really our (US) fault. Terms of service is not the law. It should never be the law. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a terrible piece of legislation that is completely out of touch with reality. It should have been abolished a long time ago and yet we have taken no steps to abolish it here in the US.
This is all our (US) doing. We blazed the trail like this and have done nothing to correct our mistakes.
I don't see this happening although I would have a beer belly laugh if all of these tech oligarchs got on their knees just for Trump to piss on their heads.
Supposedly, he's not into watersports. Given his temperament, his attitude toward SiliValley CEOs could change in the next 5 minutes, then go another direction 5 minutes later.
We are not dealing with a stable individual here. The only predictable trait he has is vindictiveness.
What's wrong with "cherry-picking" things you like, and supporting those?
Honestly the more I think about your comment, the less I can make sense of it. You are talking about their support of the DMA as "cherry-picking", right?
everything's so partisan and not nuanced today - tons of people go with the idea "the [political party] are 10,000% correct, and nothing you say can make me think otherwise!!
i don't like any one party or group unconditionally. while I have a leaning, nuanced opinions on issues can be a good thing :)
We all are trapped by TOS into data mining operation. There is no denying this fact. You don't own your computer or smartphone. You don't own your data. Practically speaking, we don't have an accessible and user-friendly tool to protect ourselves.
The humanity collective data output is weaponized, and the surveillance state is transforming itself to an AI governance.
Publicly announced by the WEF. And embraced by the masses, which have nothing to hide.
Moreover, this thing is labeled as inevitable progress and the only option is transhumanism and post human ethos.
Add to this incoming digital dollar/euro plus social scoring systems, and we are cooked.
I personally don’t care about alternative app stores, but I know many do, especially here.
I really want two things:
* companies cannot engage in any activity a common person would consider “spying”, cannot take the data collected by users of that service and transfer it to another entity, and third parties may not aggregate data collected about persons for any reason. There are a million and one useful reasons to do each of these things, but companies have proven themselves morally bankrupt and should lose that ability. This would go beyond “opt-in”, just make it illegal or the impractical (e.g. it would require a notary, licensed broker, or lawyers on both sides to engage in the practice)
* digital “purchases” are transferrable and have all of the rights and privileges afforded to physical goods. The producer/consumer balance shifted completely in favor of the producer with digital goods. Terms need to be more favorable to the purchaser as well as protections following the dissolution of a digital marketplace.
I'd go further and apply something like the notary/broker approach to the collection of data. Types of data should be defined in law. Some (say, email address) would be "free" to collect, but subject to strict sharing requirements like you describe (e.g., you can ask anyone for their email address, but you can't do anything with it except use it yourself to contact them). Others (mailing address) would be allowed for certain purposes (e.g., you need to mail the person a package). Companies should expect regular audits and stiff financial penalties if they collect such data but cannot objectively demonstrate that they actually need it to perform a service they are providing to the person who provides it. (This means you can't collect someone's mailing address unless you actually need it to do a specific thing for that person; simply using it as input to your internal analytics isn't good enough.) Others (e.g., location tracking) would require an approval process akin to being licensed to transport hazardous waste or something, so that it would be straight-up illegal to collect such data without prior approval. That approval process would involve full public disclosure of all intended uses of the data. You can't collect sensitive data without telling everyone exactly what you're going to do with it.
A large portion of the data that is illegally shared should never have been collected in the first place.
Some of this is already achieved by the EU's GDPR, not the DMA
> The DMA designates six tech companies as “gatekeepers” to the internet — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft — and limits these technology kingpins from engaging in anticompetitive tactics on their platforms, in favor of interoperability.
DMA seems like a no-brainer for those that support users’ freedom. Since DMA came into effect almost two years ago, can anyone comment on its effectiveness?
Side note, I’m glad the EU takes normal people’s rights seriously. Wish the US was a leader on this too.
Apple still indirectly controls what is distributed and charges developers outside their app store money[1]. So it hasn't been effective enough to actually open up the platform for arbitrary apps to be installed.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
As a direct consequence I have two alternative app stores on my iPhone. Something Americans cannot have.
I don't like they are designated as "gatekeepers".
As far as I can tell, it's a descriptor used negatively, not a crowning designation.
The key is to imagine them as Zuul the Gatekeeper from Ghostbusters.
I object to this foul, tainted union. The children will have crossed toes and webbed eyes. God expressly forbids this in Romans: “Yea, unto thee I say, no man shall lay with an algorithmically-endowed data sucking Beast With A Billion Bucks as they would with a woman…shit, or with a guy, it’s 2025–evangelicals are off the rails, political leaders are depriving a suffering majority of life saving services while propping up a gilded minority, all manner of unsavory acts are being committed in My name, frankly I think it’s well past time I gave Adam and Steve my official blessing. You do you, as long as it’s all love, go with Me, God” (paraphrasing a bit at the end there)
Anyway, what was this originally about? Armageddon?
Why? the designation comes with obligations, but Im not aware that it confers any benefits.
just other corporations trynna make money no one ever does anything to be good but to make money :)
It's about as effective as the GDPR - which means very strong regulation and penalties on paper, but no actual enforcement of said penalties once you breach it - all bark and no bite.
(please, don't reply with that "enforcement tracker" link - a billion is nothing for Facebook and especially not when it's in exchange of 7 years of continuous and blatant breach of the regulation)
I have no data on enforcement but since it went into effect, every place I've worked has taken it very seriously so it has definitely had consequences, very positive ones in my opinion.
What do you mean not effective? I worked in a digital marketing/advertising company and we needed to re-architect our whole system to comply with GDPR, it was a pain in the ass for both backend team and analytics team.
That the GDPR is “all bark and no bite” is factually untrue.
As an example of a service that was forced to change to get in line with GDPR: Facebook.
For user profiling, they first tried to use their Terms of Service, then they tried claiming a legitimate interest, then they tried offering paid subscriptions, and now they are at the point where they somewhat degrade the experience of those refusing to be profiled. I'm not talking about the fines, I'm talking about EU citizens being able to use Facebook while refusing to give their consent for profiling. I'm also talking about the ability to download your data or to delete your data from their servers, which was also the outcome of GDPR.
Facebook has also received multiple GDPR-related fines, maybe it's not enough, but it's only going to get worse, as EU regulators are also eyeing them for the spread of election misinformation. Actually, Zuckerberg has been kissing Trump's ring because he's hoping for some protectionism from the US. He said so in his now infamous Joe Rogan podcast episode.
And for the DMA — well, Apple now allows alternative browser engines within the EU, as just one example.
So I just don't understand why people make this claim. The DPAs may be slow, but that's not a good argument. Law enforcement in general is slow. And the fact is that the GDPR is changing the Internet, which is undeniable.
> Apple now allows alternative browser engines within the EU, as just one example.
Have any shipped?
Not in the EU myself but I don't think so. There's a specific entitlement that has to be granted and last time I looked nobody has ever done it.
I learned one interesting tidbit from the latest Ladybird progress report: apparently, in order for an engine to actually be eligible to get this entitlement, it actually has to have a higher than 90% WPT pass rate. I think it is absolutely fascinating that this is part of the criteria. The differences between the era of more-or-less free distribution on desktop platforms couldn't be more different than the totalitarian control of iOS and the slightly less restrictive control of Android. It almost feels like what happened with home computers was an accident, a circumstance that was only temporary and that once it is finally taken away we'll never get it back.
It's weird to think about. The evolving nature of computer security has definitely created some serious challenges for having a more open distribution model, but by and large nobody wants to try to solve that, and there's not much of an incentive to. The problem is, though, that closing down distribution doesn't just magically solve the problem of trust, it centralizes it to a single entity, with all of the many problems that comes with.
People, of course, seem to defend this practice tooth and nail. Like, it's not enough to just have the option of curated walled gardens: it's important to be forced to use them, because your agency could be used against you by other massive corporations, by coercing you to sidestep security measures. (Nevermind the fact that the existence of said abusive mega corporations is, in and of itself, a problem that should be dealt with directly...)
Meanwhile, I'm just blown away. I have an iPad with an M1 processor. It has virtualization capabilities. It could run VMs, if Apple would let it. Volunteers have gone great lengths despite JIT restrictions and sandboxing to make decent virtualization software for iOS, entirely free of charge. But instead, they updated iPadOS to explicitly remove the hypervisor framework in a major OS upgrade, and of course, it being an iPad, you can't even choose to downgrade it. Now I'm not saying running a desktop OS in a VM is an ideal experience for a tablet, but the damn thing has a keyboard cover and all manner of connectivity, it would be extremely useful to allow this, especially given how relatively powerful the device is. Yet, you can't.
And sure. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I largely don't buy Apple products anymore, but I have a few for various reasons. They're very nice pieces of hardware. But the thing is, the market isn't incentivized to offer alternatives to Apple. What Apple has accomplished with the App Store is absolutely unparalleled: 30% of all revenue. Everywhere, in every app. Perpetually. Forever. Holy Shit. And sure, there are technically exceptions, but let's face it: they play fast and loose with their own rules. When even Patreon is forced to pay 30% you know they are just going to push anyone with enough revenue into it with some rationale. So I personally struggle to believe that there will be alternatives if nothing is done. It's not a matter of people not being willing to buy viable alternatives, it's more a matter of nobody being able to sell them, because doing the arguably unfair thing profits hand-over-fist and nobody can fucking compete with that.
So we're here, bargaining with the richest company in the world, for the ability to be able to download a web browser that isn't Safari in a trenchcoat.
I don't like all EU regulation, but it's kind of unreal to watch this unfold and see how people actually defend this status quo. I still struggle to reconcile how people who consider themselves hackers or at least adjacent to hacker culture can see all of this and not feel dead inside.
> It almost feels like what happened with home computers was an accident, a circumstance that was only temporary and that once it is finally taken away we'll never get it back.
Home computers gave full control to the owners because there was no other choice. There was no internet, no way to push updates or hoover up data. Anything that happened on those machines had to be initiated by the user. They have been working on pulling all that back ever since always-on internet has become something that can basically be taken for granted.
No but Google has reportedly been testing Blink on iOS.
The GDPR is very clear (despite those who profit from breaching it would like you to believe): consent for non-essential data collection/processing should be strictly opt-in. You can't opt-in by default, you can't use dark patterns to trick people to opt-in, and you can't degrade the experience to coerce people to opt in.
Yet by your own comment's admission, Facebook has tried multiple blatant breaches of the regulation, and is still in business and trying their latest iteration of pseudo-compliance, which means whatever enforcement there is, it's clearly not enough.
When it comes to the DMA, Apple is currently on track to receive a (very low) fine for not actually complying by still preventing developer from letting users know they can pay for apps/services outside the App Store for cheaper. So clearly the potential penalties and actual enforcement is low enough that Apple is (rightly) calling their bluff.
I can now use Facebook without being profiled for ads. I can also delete my account.
It took longer than expected, but it happened. The GDPR has forced Facebook and others to change.
People may want huge fines, but then the EU is accused of targeting US companies or suffocating innovation. I don't want fines necessarily, I want results.
What worries me is the way big tech is forced to build some kind of law book (they call their TOS) some kind of detective apparatus, some kind of kangaroo court and a model for punishing the citizen (user) which is not something anyone should want them to do including them. It is like the old time court where every decision is made though the lens of profit. It gets even more dystopian in a closed ecosystem.
This is really our (US) fault. Terms of service is not the law. It should never be the law. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a terrible piece of legislation that is completely out of touch with reality. It should have been abolished a long time ago and yet we have taken no steps to abolish it here in the US.
This is all our (US) doing. We blazed the trail like this and have done nothing to correct our mistakes.
YC can't even urge it's own startups to do anything
Y Combinator "Urges the Whitehouse" is nothing but a fiduciary tight rope walking bribe to receive governance in your favor.
The current admin is not going to support anything sane or european. But nice sentiment.
I don't see this happening although I would have a beer belly laugh if all of these tech oligarchs got on their knees just for Trump to piss on their heads.
Supposedly, he's not into watersports. Given his temperament, his attitude toward SiliValley CEOs could change in the next 5 minutes, then go another direction 5 minutes later.
We are not dealing with a stable individual here. The only predictable trait he has is vindictiveness.
That would be pretty sweet
[flagged]
How does this make sense? Cherry picking things you agree with is exactly what you should do. Based on reason and evidence.
What's wrong with "cherry-picking" things you like, and supporting those?
Honestly the more I think about your comment, the less I can make sense of it. You are talking about their support of the DMA as "cherry-picking", right?
It's a lot easier cognitively to just choose a side than it is to have nuanced opinions
everything's so partisan and not nuanced today - tons of people go with the idea "the [political party] are 10,000% correct, and nothing you say can make me think otherwise!!
i don't like any one party or group unconditionally. while I have a leaning, nuanced opinions on issues can be a good thing :)
[flagged]
We all are trapped by TOS into data mining operation. There is no denying this fact. You don't own your computer or smartphone. You don't own your data. Practically speaking, we don't have an accessible and user-friendly tool to protect ourselves.
The humanity collective data output is weaponized, and the surveillance state is transforming itself to an AI governance.
Publicly announced by the WEF. And embraced by the masses, which have nothing to hide.
Moreover, this thing is labeled as inevitable progress and the only option is transhumanism and post human ethos.
Add to this incoming digital dollar/euro plus social scoring systems, and we are cooked.
So, welcome China apparatus. :)
lmao you had me until china you probably believed ministry of information saying free world :)
1) that will never happen. 2) that should never happen.