Before opening the article, let me guess from the title: 1) United-Statian author, 2) calling himself a “venture capitalist” or similar, 3) babbling what boils down to “leave teh hand of teh free market alone!11one”, 4) criticising data and/or privacy laws that left USA corporations pissed.
The article and websearch show that #1, #3 and #4 were accurate. I couldn’t find info on #2 but I’m still calling it “bingo~”.
Shit like this is a dime a dozen in “Hacker” News. It boils down to vested interests disguised as interests of the European population, so it exerts pressure over their governments. I’m not European but I can’t help but say “cut off the crap”.
Now, on the article itself. TL;DR it’s fallacious shit. For succinctness I’m quoting only the start of each paragraph.
In June, Apple announced a new product […]
The company said […]
Apple’s strategy is product tying. It’s abusive and unfair, so the DMA legislates it out. Apple however can’t work without it so it decided that selling its junk in Europe wouldn’t be profitable. That’s it.
Why it’s unfair: easier shown with an example. Let’s say that Apple sold apples, OK? Apple would design its apples in such a way that you can only eat them with Apple apple forks and knives, after being peeled with Apple apple peelers. If you manufacture peelers, forks or knives, well… sucks to be you, unless you have the capital to replicate the whole vertical tying. And if you do it, Apple will sue you. :)
Why it’s abusive: because it artificially restricts customer choices and agency. So you want to bite your way into the apple? If it’s an Apple apple, Apple tells you “fuck you, you can’t do it, you need to use our apple peelers, forks and knives. Chrust us, it’s safer this way. Think on the children!”
Vestager’s statement is ridiculous […]
What’s ridiculous is the feigned stupidity of the author, pretending to not understand that the absence of a huge and customer-hostile player in a market allows smaller players to flourish, and compete among themselves.
The economist Albert Hirschman […]
The author is being disingenuous: instead of backing up his implicit claim that Apple leaving is bad, he opts for a “nooo, those aren’t just muh words. They’re of some authority” (fallacy of appeal to authority), and leading the reader through a circular reasoning (yet another fallacy): “Apple leaving is bad, thus DMA bad, because DMA doesn’t let Apple to go rogue, and Apple leaving is bad”.
Apple’s decision isn’t the first time […]
Adult sites are blocking users […]
If that seems far-fetched […]
Is the DMA poorly designed? The author doesn’t back this up either, he simply treats it as a matter of fact, as if the readers were gullible cattle eager to be herded.
Look at the pattern in the examples in those three paragraphs: with two major exceptions, all examples are from the GAFAM, the five big monopolies known for their anti-competitive practices, that screech against any law that prevents them from crushing competition. But apparently the reader is supposed to “chrust” the author that GAFAM leaving Europe alone is “bad” for European markets. …right, just like my cat leaving my furniture alone would be bad for the furniture, right?
The two exceptions are worth exploring:
Numerous technology firms have left China due to the power the Chinese Communist Party exerts over foreign corporations.
It’s an odd example, isn’t it? So far the author is mentioning specific legislation, but now suddenly vaguely referring to CCP’s power, as if he can’t be arsed to mention the specific law that is, accordingly to him, making those tech firms leave.
That’s a fallacy known as “argumentum ad hitlerem” (“Hitler ate bread, thus bread bad”). The author is not trying to convince you through rational means; the goal is to provoke an emotional reaction through references to China and the CCP. (BTW this specific subtype of ad hitlerem is also known as “red scare”.)
Adult sites are blocking users in a variety of U.S. states over age verification laws.
The author shot himself in the foot with this example.
Those adult sites are doing so because it’s problematic when personally identifiable information is required to watch porn, given that porn is considered immoral by plenty other people.
In the meantime, the GAFAM monopolies beloved by the author are often pissed… because of European laws protecting privacy. Such as the GDPR. Oopsie~
Perhaps the GAFAM leaving would be a public good for Europeans.
Or consider the recent charges the EU levied against X. [SIC - Twitter/Xitter] […]
These charges are absurd. […]
The author is going into a huge Chewbacca defence to justify that blue check, that basically tells “chrust dis account!”, when any muppet can get it by paying eight bucks a month. Yes, it is deceptive.
As the author is grasping at straws, I’m not too eager to finish the text. /me yawns Can’t be arsed.
I hope that this scatological autopsy was useful or at least entertaining for anyone here.
[EDIT reason: bits of spell-proofing and revision.]
The world as a whole should cut off US hegemony on tech, social media, and news out of existence.
Lesson to be learned from the last 2 decades is that we also should not let any other country (China or anyone else) hold so much power in shaping a one sided narrative.
Fediverse is a step in that direction. Hopefully it succeeds.
Fully agree. Specially on what you said about the Fediverse - the GAFAM exploits network effect walls a fair bit, to lock users in, and federation brings those walls down.
And, without those walls, it’s also hard for any specific government (be it China or USA or any other) to have hegemonic control over it.
Before opening the article, let me guess from the title: 1) United-Statian author, 2) calling himself a “venture capitalist” or similar, 3) babbling what boils down to “leave teh hand of teh free market alone!11one”, 4) criticising data and/or privacy laws that left USA corporations pissed.
The article and websearch show that #1, #3 and #4 were accurate. I couldn’t find info on #2 but I’m still calling it “bingo~”.
Shit like this is a dime a dozen in “Hacker” News. It boils down to vested interests disguised as interests of the European population, so it exerts pressure over their governments. I’m not European but I can’t help but say “cut off the crap”.
Now, on the article itself. TL;DR it’s fallacious shit. For succinctness I’m quoting only the start of each paragraph.
Apple’s strategy is product tying. It’s abusive and unfair, so the DMA legislates it out. Apple however can’t work without it so it decided that selling its junk in Europe wouldn’t be profitable. That’s it.
Why it’s unfair: easier shown with an example. Let’s say that Apple sold apples, OK? Apple would design its apples in such a way that you can only eat them with Apple apple forks and knives, after being peeled with Apple apple peelers. If you manufacture peelers, forks or knives, well… sucks to be you, unless you have the capital to replicate the whole vertical tying. And if you do it, Apple will sue you. :)
Why it’s abusive: because it artificially restricts customer choices and agency. So you want to bite your way into the apple? If it’s an Apple apple, Apple tells you “fuck you, you can’t do it, you need to use our apple peelers, forks and knives. Chrust us, it’s safer this way. Think on the children!”
What’s ridiculous is the feigned stupidity of the author, pretending to not understand that the absence of a huge and customer-hostile player in a market allows smaller players to flourish, and compete among themselves.
The author is being disingenuous: instead of backing up his implicit claim that Apple leaving is bad, he opts for a “nooo, those aren’t just muh words. They’re of some authority” (fallacy of appeal to authority), and leading the reader through a circular reasoning (yet another fallacy): “Apple leaving is bad, thus DMA bad, because DMA doesn’t let Apple to go rogue, and Apple leaving is bad”.
Is the DMA poorly designed? The author doesn’t back this up either, he simply treats it as a matter of fact, as if the readers were gullible cattle eager to be herded.
Look at the pattern in the examples in those three paragraphs: with two major exceptions, all examples are from the GAFAM, the five big monopolies known for their anti-competitive practices, that screech against any law that prevents them from crushing competition. But apparently the reader is supposed to “chrust” the author that GAFAM leaving Europe alone is “bad” for European markets. …right, just like my cat leaving my furniture alone would be bad for the furniture, right?
The two exceptions are worth exploring:
It’s an odd example, isn’t it? So far the author is mentioning specific legislation, but now suddenly vaguely referring to CCP’s power, as if he can’t be arsed to mention the specific law that is, accordingly to him, making those tech firms leave.
That’s a fallacy known as “argumentum ad hitlerem” (“Hitler ate bread, thus bread bad”). The author is not trying to convince you through rational means; the goal is to provoke an emotional reaction through references to China and the CCP. (BTW this specific subtype of ad hitlerem is also known as “red scare”.)
The author shot himself in the foot with this example.
Those adult sites are doing so because it’s problematic when personally identifiable information is required to watch porn, given that porn is considered immoral by plenty other people.
In the meantime, the GAFAM monopolies beloved by the author are often pissed… because of European laws protecting privacy. Such as the GDPR. Oopsie~
Perhaps the GAFAM leaving would be a public good for Europeans.
The author is going into a huge Chewbacca defence to justify that blue check, that basically tells “chrust dis account!”, when any muppet can get it by paying eight bucks a month. Yes, it is deceptive.
As the author is grasping at straws, I’m not too eager to finish the text.
/me yawnsCan’t be arsed.I hope that this scatological autopsy was useful or at least entertaining for anyone here.
[EDIT reason: bits of spell-proofing and revision.]
The world as a whole should cut off US hegemony on tech, social media, and news out of existence.
Lesson to be learned from the last 2 decades is that we also should not let any other country (China or anyone else) hold so much power in shaping a one sided narrative.
Fediverse is a step in that direction. Hopefully it succeeds.
Fully agree. Specially on what you said about the Fediverse - the GAFAM exploits network effect walls a fair bit, to lock users in, and federation brings those walls down.
And, without those walls, it’s also hard for any specific government (be it China or USA or any other) to have hegemonic control over it.