Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattrighetti | Hacker News Reader

> Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good.

The fallacy here is that you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here. I see regulations in this specific case as something that goes against progress, whatever that means for the company of your favorite messaging app for the reasons I've explained above.

What about startups that will have to think about this one more thing and maybe put in twice the work when they want to validate their new product?

We're probably leaving out about thousands of other cases here, that's why I made the argument that it sounds nice but it's actually making things worse from my point of view.

View on HN

The fallacy HERE is "individual preferences accurately reflect collective good."

Again, there's no clear-cut answer at any given time whether or not "this particular possibly-restrictive regulation is good for everyone." Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't. That's what you use democracy/government for, to figure these things out.

The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. The alternative of having people vote for a representative body that regulates how they transact is far worse. Best case you get a almost as good outcome. Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good".

The whole point of market economies is for those who have the most wealth decide how resources are utilized.

The aim is to find equilibriums though more signals and noise than any one authority could realize. The outcome is efficiency of resource allocation.

> The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources.

How do negative externalities and imperfect information figure into that? Sure, I'd love to buy Monsanto's awesome defoliant because it's cheaper than BASF's equivalent, but I may also get cancer from it in 5 years, or I may be killing pollinating insects for many miles downwind and downstream.

Do you suppose market forces could have gotten rid of lead in paint or gasoline if regulations hadn't?

Hehe some would say bad products wouldnt be sold for long but the truth is that most bad products are not gone because the market dictated it but because of regulations ;)

Regulation is a useful tool when there is quantifiable harm to an involuntary third party. That is not the case here. People have an infinite amount of electronic communication tools and services from which to choose. These are all voluntary without negative externalities causing harm on individuals outside the conversation (or outside the site when relating to the cookie policy).

> People have an infinite amount of electronic communication tools and services from which to choose.

Due to network effects of communication tools, this is not really true.

Network effects can be overcome locally, by talking with your contacts and getting them to move to a new app/communication mechanism. It takes time, but compelling arguments will win in the end.

I think one of the big missing pieces in your parent comment about choice and negative externalities has to do with this network effect and I do not think the argument that it can be overcome locally is a very compelling counter.

It certainly is a difficult thing to do, but we see it happen time and time again. TikTok is now the biggest app, and it was nowhere a few years ago. Same with things like Insta, What's app, Signal, etc.

It is definitely a hard thing to overcome but not impossible. Especially as people become more privacy focused. I, for example, have had zero luck moving my family to Signal, and I'm the only non iPhone in the family network with my grapheneos phone and receive constant complaints about how I mess up group threads.

> Do you suppose market forces could have gotten rid of lead in paint or gasoline if regulations hadn't?

Yes. Consider how cars have become incredibly safe over the years. Is this because the government writes good regulations? No. It is because IIHS (and the government, as well) do crash tests and publish the results. Consumers gravitate towards cars that have top safety ratings.

Ironically, the government is why leaded gasoline still exists at all.

Many generations of people fought and died to not just let the monstrous assholes with resources decide everything.

The market decides, which is a collection of signals from an amount of players that outweighs any one individual.

It is a much better method of concensus than regulation when no involuntary third party harm exists. It ensures those that have a stake are able to vote, where the size of your vote is proportional to the resources dedicated. Of course not everyone has equal voting power. Why should they when it comes to privately consumed goods and services?

Because it turns into an exploitation shit show incompatible with a stable prosperous society if we just satisfy your fetish for the perfect embodiment of abstractions like “the market.”

Well, maybe. Some fought for the same state that turned around and gave GM a whole ton of money. My boss got a couple PPP loans, and a new car. There might be some ebb and flow to the whims of those pulling the strings, but it sure looks like those who are close to them do alright.

> Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good".

As an iPhone, iPad, and iMessage user, please explain how I will "suffer horribly" from being able to interact with the iMessage service from non-Apple devices.

Apple seems to keep spam on iMessage fairly well controlled.

If anyone can do iMessage on any device, it is logical that these protections may weaken over time.

I'll grant you that - but the proposed legislation isn't requiring Apple to allow iMessage users to receive unsolicited messages from external services.

It would require additional effort on Apple's part to keep third party tools' spam efforts at bay. At some point the cost of doing that isn't something Apple could justify, and at that time unsolicited messages absolutely will increase in volume.

That changes nothing. I can't receive unsolicited messages on my xmpp and matrix accounts until I allow the contact invitation.

At worst you could be flooded with invites but that wouldn't be much different than any one of our linkedin accounts and there could be easy mechanism to ban external servers that are reported to allow too many spammers.

1) If it is prohibitively difficult (with what that means entirely defined by Apple) for them to fully support all features of iMessage to non-Apple users, and the law requires that other devices have full parity (I don't know if it does; the article is pretty short and detail-light), then Apple may have to remove features from iMessage even on Apple devices.

2) Apple may choose not to try to implement new features that they otherwise would have, for several possible reasons: similar to #1, they don't think they can feasibly implement them cross-platform; due to the extra effort of supporting multiple platforms, they no longer have the dev resources to devote to it; they think it will no longer be as profitable; etc

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service.

Apple obviously won't write these apps, or support those apps or the devices they run on.

Also, If Apple at a later date add features to the iMessage protocol then they document the changes & make this available and are clearly not responsible to implement or support these changes on platforms other than their own.

Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage.

> Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage.

> All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service.

Your very argument is contradictory. The law does require Apple to do something. It requires them to reveal trade secrets and IP.

This is nitpicky. Fine. It does not require Apple to "build" something or to engage in additional work.

Agreed. It was nitpicky. But it still remains that the legislation removes a competitive advantage and possibly forces IP to be revealed.

Yes. That would be the point. I don't think anyone would meaningfully argue AGAINST the idea that it is "detrimental to Apple and their interests," which is literally all this means.

> All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol

Do you know the specific requirements of the law, and that this would be within their terms? Because, as I stated fairly clearly, I do not know what the law requires, and was working based on one possible (fairly strict) version of what it could be.

If the law just says Apple has to open the protocol, then that certainly reduces the potential problems—but, as hellojesus points out, there may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets. Now, you and I may not particularly care whether Apple is able to protect every single one of its trade secrets, but I guarantee you they do, and unless the law is worded such that it requires them to give those away (again: Do you know the wording of the law? If so, please share and enlighten us!), I think that there's a very good chance that they will choose to remove functionality from iMessage rather than do so.

To be quite clear, on the whole, I think that opening up iMessage will be for the best, even being an Apple and iMessage user myself. I was simply responding to a post that was asking for potential ways in which existing iMessage users could suffer because of it.

>may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets

It's a chat app. It's one of the first apps a programmer learns to make.

The one and only thing separating iMessage from 10,000 other chat apps is the fact it's the default on the most common phone.

The trade secret is inertia and anti competitive lock-in.

Even the biggest fan of free markets agrees government need to prevent market failures, such as natural monopolies caused by network effects.

> Even the biggest fan of free markets agrees government need to prevent market failures, such as natural monopolies caused by network effects.

No, the biggest fans of “free markets” do not think that, in fact, they mock both the general idea of “market failure” and the specific places where people outside their faith identify such failures:

https://mises.org/library/market-failure

https://mises.org/library/market-failure-myth

https://mises.org/library/myth-market-failure

https://mises.org/wire/healthcare-and-market-failure

https://mises.org/library/response-market-failure-drones

I clicked the first link, which argues that free markets are bad because central banking has failed.

Central banking does not exist in a free market. Of course it will fail. Free markets are designed precisely to avoid the inevitable failure of a central authority.

> I clicked the first link, which argues that free markets are bad because central banking has failed.

You may have clicked on it, but I don’t see how you got that message from it. It argues that free markets are good, and that problems attributed to “market failure” are instead failures of other things (like central banking) that are not features of free markets. (All of the other pieces argue variations on the same thing; its plays a central role in the Mises Institute’s economic dogma.)

Thanks. I skimmed through it and saw the core ideas. I thought your original comment was sarcasm. My bad.

Peter Thiel famously argued that when monopolies arise in a free market, it's "actually a good thing".

> Best case you get a almost as good outcome

Ah, so you have never heard of market failure, market manipulation, cartels, negative externalities, qash trading, self dealing, insider trading, wage supression agreements, and dozens of others?

You do realise that without government to keep fraud and manipulation in check 'free market' collapses into anarchy in one week?

In more political phraseology, that would be tyranny rather than anarchy (that is, without hierarchy)

> You do realise that without government to keep fraud and manipulation in check 'free market' collapses into anarchy in one week?

Can you provide an example of this? Or maybe point out some theory/philosophy that builds to this? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm legitimately curious what is out there as this doesn't seem like a self-evident claim.

Of your list, the party that comes to mind as a salient example most often is the state.

The whole point of market economies is to let people freely trade goods and services, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with the silly fantasy of "consumption equals governance." That's textbook nerd BS that just doesn't play out well in real life. You need direct governance, you can't expect a tool designed for one thing to do another.

It only targets big "platform providers" not startups. It even levels the playing field for those startups. People get so ideologically tangled that they just knee jerk.

> ideologically tangled

I wish people being even that principled... I think the reactionaries in this debate are just the current generation of Apple "fanbois" who, for whatever reason, feel some need to "protect" a trillion-dollar company, or just good ol' fashioned elitism?

My pet theory is that the frothy bile in posts wanting to keep iMessage private is probably grounded in psychology/sociology: People with a quite genuine fondness for Apple's products and services, combined with their higher barriers to entry (monetary cost), forms the basis for their in-group identity, and they don't want an out-group seen as inferior (Android users, etc) from getting to join-in their, private, shared-experience. It's the same as with kids fighting over PlayStation vs Xbox.

Heh, it reminds me of when I was like that: I was a very visibly-on-the-spectrum kid who knew Photoshop, before anyone else at my school even knew what it was; when MSN Messenger 6.0 came out with support for custom user avatars/profile-pics: I thought this would lead to "normal" people learning Photoshop/digital-art and airbrushing and all getting their own Wacom tablets to make their own avatar-art and I'd lose my... special status as that one weird kid who knows Photoshop. Nah, turns out in the end everyone at school just used photos of themselves or the logos of rock bands (Radiohead's was popular) or sportswear brands. And in 2023, most people still don't know Photoshop.

So being an Apple user tends to makes someone protective of whatever they feel makes Apple... Apple. Fortunately those people aren't MEPs who get to vote on legislation with a demonstrable public benefit.

> you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them

He or she doesn’t get to, but the society does. Collectively. Not individually. That’s the premise that makes the difference between “society” and a “collection of individuals”

> People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here.

People have decided, by voting.

Why do you think voting with your wallet is the only legitimate way of expressing your wishes? What if someone is poor, they get no vote?

Maybe tbe poor person needs access to technology to not be poor, and the markets have locked them out?

> What about startups

The laws that apply to monopolies / oligopolies dont apply to startups

> [..] you don't get to decide what "social good" is

Well, technically I have a say, I elect my leaders and can write to them with my opinion. Often it is the case that salesmen and charletons get into those positions but the basic premise of those positions is that they're intended to act in the social good. What you propose is that somehow tech companies will act in the social good by themselves, which I find particularly dubious.

All capitalist companies (and by that I mean, any company that is enjoying success in a capitalist society) have an often unstated goal of monopolising their market.

It is a natural outcome of competition that eventually there is a victor. The whole premise of capitalism is that competition is good, but eventually the strongest will win and you have a monopolistic leader.

The only antidote to this is regulations.

Making the argument that regulation hurts smaller companies is also something uniquely American. This regulation (and many other tech regulations) are really aimed at people abusing their position today, not some theoretical startup that somehow captures 60% of a market overnight.

FWIW, I actually really like iMessage and agree with the decision Apple made not to open it, but I can't abide talk like this because a lot of people seem to think that regulation is somehow anti-capitalist, when in reality regulation is the only thing that could keep the capitalist machine running once there is a monopoly position or a sufficient moat around a service.

> The only antidote to this is regulations.

Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt smaller businesses in the long run because those giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments and they usually have thousands of smart lawyers ready to find holes and exploit/get around regulations made, usually, by people that does not understand the subject enough.

Want to take a guess and see who does not have thousands of smart lawyers?

Just FYI: We have the Apple's example with USB-C ready to showcase this exact thing.

Yes, if you intend on doing something unethical then it's certainly easier as a big company.

I have so far had good experiences with the legal system and regulations by choosing industries that are not unethical.

Nobody is chasing people who are not in violation of the cardinal rule zero: "Do not act in a way that requires [me] to make a new rule"

> Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt

Yeah you made the point very clear already in all your other posts, no need to repeat it everywhere. Other point errors in your arguments like this being for 75b corps completely nullifying your core arguments, lets just say most of the forum including me, EU and indeed world doesn't share your view at all.

In fact, some healthy dose of regulations makes society actual modern society, less people dying and suffering because money-first. Speed of progress at any costs, believe it or not, is not the ultimate measure of how 'good', moral or developed society is, despite very very few getting richer quicker that way.

I did not make the case that ALL regulations must be erased to a zero, at all. I do believe that there must be a minimum of regulations that actually make everyone prosper and go along with each other. Unfortunately, regulating messaging so that anyone can have just a single app on their phone for that specific task is beyond unnecessary, but that's just my useless opinion I guess.

Regulation is also used as a euphemism for unelected bureaucrats creating policy with the force of law without real democratic input. Unless you consider the regulator retiring from government to take a seat on the board of a company he or she used to regulate or give $100k paid speeches to same a form of democracy I suppose.

I don't know if that's what it means in the EU, but operationally it's observably what it means in the USA. I will say from a distance it looks like the EU's unelected bureaucrats have even more power than the American ones do.

Your use of the term "unelected bureaucrats" as a delegitimizing pejorative is risible. Do yourself a favour and read Michael Lewis's The Fifth Risk.

The EU's civil servants are, by and large, an exceptionally talented bunch of people, most of whom are multilingual in addition to being experts in the fields they were hired for.

As for their having power, it's subject to democratic constraint. Maybe you should inform yourself about the process by which EU regulations are made? (No, it isn't perfect; you could start with the Trilogue Process).

We'll regulate as we see fit in the EU. Businesses that don't like it are welcome and free to go do business elsewhere.

> We'll regulate as we see fit in the EU. Businesses that don't like it are welcome and free to go do business elsewhere.

I predict that if the US foreign policy elite deems it desirable that Google operate in Europe, then Google will operate in Europe. The US based empire is happy to let the EU regulate cheese and wine, but when it comes to geopolitics they keep them on a tight leash. The Ukraine affair has shown that beyond all doubt. Hats off to the French though for rejecting permanent occupying forces under De Gaulle and never letting them back.

It's nice to pretend that GDPR somehow struck a blow against corporate overreach, but in reality it was permitted because it didn't degrade the value of Big Tech for the Intelligence Community.

If it is a feature you consider "unneccesary", why argue against it so passionately? It just sounds like something you won't use.

> Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer

You have proposed no mehcanism to keep monopolies in check. You are a firm beliver in what?

> giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments

So governments should be even more agressive and disproportionate to be effevtive? That is the inevitable conclusion of your argument.

The conclusion of my argument is that regulations disincentive competition and that’s why you end up with monopolies, so keep regulations at minimum.

Do you have any examples? Net neutrality comes to mind, but that feels a quite extreme example due to complete regulatory capture of the FCC by big telecoms.

> regulations disincentive competition and that’s why you end up with monopolies,

Seriously? There was no regulation on search, so how did google become a monopoly?

Regulations can disproportionately affect small businesses and still be worthwhile by virtue of preventing the thing they're regulating. For example, might be harder to start a train company with rigid safety standards but not spilling toxic chemicals over small towns is ideal.

I think USB-C's relatively flimsily implemented open standard is kind of evidence of why Apple is hesitant to things like RCS. Good luck charging a Nintendo Switch or your laptop with just a random usb-c cable you found laying around that came with who knows what. Hope you have an entire day day.

Nintendo Switch AFAIR is not USB-C standard comply, they just use the same connector.

You just proved their point.

> All capitalist companies (and by that I mean, any company that is enjoying success in a capitalist society) have an often unstated goal of monopolising their market.

That's ridiculous. There's plenty of companies that want to do what they do well and make a good profit, but have no interest in being the only player in their market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com