Hacker News Reader

Comment by redm | Hacker News Reader

I must be missing something because Google collects more information from more sources for more advertising. I'm more worried about Google.

* fixed a spelling error from the mobile post.

View on HN

As I recall, Facebook was allowed to buy Whatsapp in France after they promised not to share user data between the two services. I think Germany had similar objections, but now Facebook is ignoring that agreement which always annoys governments.

Facebook even got a $122 million EU fine for same issue https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/18/facebook-european-commis.... “After months of deliberation, the European Commission has ruled that Facebook intentionally mislead officials over its ability to utilize data following its acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014.”

They really have to start going after the people themselves. Right now it’s way too easy to do something and then hide behind the company. Things will never change if the company pays the fines.

This is an anti-trust case. Google has no monopoly in most of their endeavors, for example there are thousands of email providers and ad networks.

On the other hand, they caught themselfes a fine last year over the inability to "un-Google" Android phones: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/google-eu-andr...

There has been no corresponding action in the US regarding the vendors' ability to sell phones without google play services. Which is a shame because I doubt if EU alone is a big enough market for vendors to create new products without google play services. At least there haven't been any such announcements about new products since the ruling. Is EFF or any other body putting pressure in the US ?

Is it illegal to sell phones with google play services? Which law? Which case is this?

Without. TLDR: If you as a vendor sell a single phone with google play services, you cannot sell any other AOSP based phone without google play services. EU ruled against this. I don't know how the US allows this.

Competition laws and anti-monopoly laws hit long before monopolies are formed.

Real monopolies are relatively rare. Most anti-monopoly regulations worry about 'monopoly power' or 'dominant power' where companies can start to ignore competition or price signals.

For the purpose of controlling mergers, the combined market share of 25% or more of a specific market is usually refereed to anti-trust regulators who can intervene or set conditions.

We'll get to them too. Just cause you're worried about Google doesn't mean we shouldn't also go after Facebook.

yes exactly, and Im so grateful germany taking a firm lead on this

Well, yes, I would say this applies to to Google, too:

> (i) Facebook-owned services like WhatsApp and Instagram can continue to collect data. However, assigning the data to Facebook user accounts will only be possible subject to the users’ voluntary consent. Where consent is not given, the data must remain with the respective service and cannot be processed in combination with Facebook data.

https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Presse...

Google and Microsoft both combined user data under one account to "improve users' experience", and gave up the practice of deanonymizing the collected data in the process, because "who's going to stop us, right?!":

https://www.propublica.org/article/google-has-quietly-droppe...

the ordering germany makes when going after them is irrelevant

Contrary to the belief of whataboutists everywhere, it is actually possible to be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

I don't understand accusations of whataboutism. They oftentimes seem hypocritical: accusing someone of whataboutism is as relevant (and therefore, by its own logic, as rhetorically valid) as the thing it seeks to criticize.

Why is exposing double standards and hypocrisies via a relevant example not a valid form of argumentation?

Depends what it's trying to argue: is mentioning other instances of a problem a counter-argument meant to suggest the original isn't such a big problem that needs resolving, or is it an extension of it that pushes for those other problems also being addressed? The problem is the former.

It's worse than invalid, it's a cliché.

Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic employing logical fallacy. It seeks to shut down discussion by creating an equivalence between two situations and implying that one is justified by not having gone after the other. It imposes a recursive loop of inaction where you can't change anything unless you change everything at the same time.

You want to fix Facebook; well, what about Google? You want to fix Google; what about Facebook?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

One can also legitimately bring up other examples to ask why they aren't being treated similarly without it being whataboutism in every case.

It sometimes can be difficult to distinguish when someone is using another example to excuse the primary subject with whataboutism or to make a sincere inquiry into why such a disparity exists.

Of course, sometimes it's easy to tell what people are doing.

also google didn't have any big leaks, while facebook is running from one scandal into the next. Obviously facebook cannot be trusted with user data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com