14,379 karma · joined November 24, 2010
Similar action happened against Microsoft Windows around 2000, just as the rise of web-based apps (online email, google docs, etc) largely made the underlying operating system less relevant to how people use their computers and apps.
So I read this as the dominant player can monopolize a market while it's relevant without an issue, and once the market starts to move on, the antitrust lawsuits come in to "make the market more competitive" at a time when that era is mostly over.
And trying to regulate early (as with the last administration's AI legislation that is now being repealed) we can see that only hindsight is 20/20, and regulating too early can kill a market. My conclusion is to just let the best product win, and even dominate for a while as this is part of the market cycle, and when a better product/platform comes along the market will move to it.
Not really, it's just "how it is" right now, personally I would prefer open web apps and distributed social networks, but those are niche, with most people using the big apps and social networks.
In a more "open web" world, I could publish and viewers could view anywhere on the planet. China was one of the first to "firewall" their citizens from the open web (likely due to their internal political arguments about national security etc) and unfortunately now I see a bipartisan trend in the USA following the same path, to the competitive benefit of few (at Meta for example, in this case), and given the text of the rule the next targets will be banning of websites based on nebulous/political security arguments for similar competitive advantage of entrenched players.
Anyway, @tivert thanks for the conversation and sharing your take as well!
Fine, but it's also unfortunate that we have corporate-pseudo-government entities (like Meta) lobbying and leveraging the power of actual government against the will of the people through FUD campaigns (see their Targeted Victory contract, for example). Restricting American access to their biggest competitor is arguably corporate-government collusion.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/31/facebook-meta-paid-republican...
To your earlier point, of course if an app is "draining the user's bank account without authorization" Apple or Google will block them, but that is not the job of politicians in Washington.
The idea of politicians in the house and senate (or president) deciding which apps to ban from the app stores will likely lead to similar actions against websites, from the article:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
"National security" is a nebulous term that feels like an excuse to ban competitors on behalf of lobbyists at Meta or elsewhere, this is not in the interest of the majority of citizens.
I think it's possible that many people want both, each in different areas of life. It's not necessarily an either/or.
My previous plan was to just set up a projector in a dark room and photograph off the big screen manually with my DSLR (I thought this might also work for 8mm film reels as well).
https://insights.greyb.com/spacex-patent/
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-makes-dozens-of-paten...
For me the most annoying thing to deal with is constantly dismissing the "view in app / continue to web" popup that tries to push the app install for those sites. I wish my preference for web would stick for these (looking at you, Reddit and Quora).