Hacker News Reader

Comment by anentropic | Hacker News Reader

"...given that the investigation revealed that X is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users"

EU commission bringing the sick burns

X also submitted rebuttal arguments, explaining why its online social networking service should not, in its view, qualify as an important gateway between businesses and consumers

The Commission is just agreeing with X’s own arguments.

Why would we want powerful unelected government bureaucrats engaged in "sick burns?"

It's a joke; in reality, X/Twitter got the outcome they wanted here, which is for the commission to rule they do not need to follow DMA supplemental guidelines which apply to gatekeeper businesses. The language in this announcement is completely pro forma, but taken out of context, sounds a bit like they're saying X/Twitter is bad at their advertising line of business.

This is lazy argument. Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries.

Commission could be directly elected as well, but no country wants that because then national states would lose relevance - as the local governments would loose control.

If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission

>> Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries.

> If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission

Because each major European political party choose a candidate for Commission President before every European Parliament election. These are typically senior members of their party but there is no requirement that they nominate someone who currently holds a seat as an MEP.

After the election is held the European Council (made up of heads of state of the member nations of the EU, all of the voting members are democratically elected) nominates the candidate of the party that secures the majority of seats (or one of the nominees from one on of the parties that are able to form a majority coalition). This candidate requires a majority vote of the newly elected European Parliament to be confirmed, and the Council must propose a new candidate if this first candidate does not secure the majority.

So yes, it is currently the case that the President of the European Commission was never an MEP, but that is only half the story. She was selected by her party, nominated by a group of democratically elected EU heads of state who are responsible to voters of their respective countries, and confirmed by MEPs who are directly elected by the voters of each respective country that makes up the EU who are also responsible to their constituents.

So that's how she got there and the process for getting there.

The powerful unelected government bureaucrats are the only people protecting users from powerful unelected billionaire bureaucrats.

The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook.

But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media.

Yes I know this is about the EU.

I’m more worried about a powerful government. Government has a “monopoly on violence”. Especially in the US between the electoral college, gerrymandering and the make up of Congress. It’s very much rule by the minority.

The extent to which poor people can appropriate a portion of that governmental "monopoly on violence" through democracy is the only real check on violence by the wealthy.

Otherwise, wealth always wins. And uses those wins to ensure it remains wealthy.

I don’t have to deal with any one private company except the ones that have a “natural monopoly” like utilities and they are already regulated and should be.

It can even be argued that smart phones should be calculated since they are necessary in today’s world and are a duopoly.

A powerful government can physically take away your freedoms.

> But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media.

Anyone in a failing democracy. No one gets to opt out of the collective effects of social media

There is nothing stopping you from not going to any social media. How do you propose the government regulate them?

And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.

Name one billionaire whose products you are forced to use - outside of “natural monopolies” that are already regulated

This Twitter situation is one example. Many agencies/governments in the US use it as their primary or sole source of realtime public communications, even when they have email, texts, websites, etc. at their disposal. I would like that to be regulated (i.e. agencies required to post on public channels that don't require a proprietary login/account).

I don't think that sort of regulation should extend to private entities, however, who should be able to communicate with their stakeholders however they please, even if I find it annoying.

I agree with that completely. If school systems have ways to contact people either individually or blast emails and texts, governments can too

Or are they? Somehow I doubt powerful unelected government bureaucrats are immune to bribery or zealotry

The argument isn't that they're free from corruption and ideology, but that they're the only real check the public has against powerful monopolies and duopolies, etc. At a certain scale, competition breaks down and entrenched enshittification happens.*

An average person has some (tiny) input in a representative democracy, where it's one person one vote (even if several layers removed, and only appointed by proxy etc.). They have no real say in a corporation that's usually one dollar one vote.

* Yeah, it happens to governments too!

Users don't need protections from online services the majority of the planet neither use nor need to use.

Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days.

> Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days.

I will take potentially misguided trade/business regulations over a megaphone for spreading Nazi speech, thank you very much.

It'd be great if you expanded this argument though, just for the sake of making the conversation more interesting on what exactly you see that's scary.

What did the EU do that's so terrifying? MicroUSB?

You need protection from X? You can just not use it.

Unfortunately in the US many important agencies chose to use it to publish announcements, even for important public safety things. I don't have an account and am thus prevented from seeing what the agencies are saying. I would like to see regulations preventing governments from doing this.

Agree that there should be laws preventing public entities from using private social networks to exclusively distribute content. ("Also" is fine)

It's lazy and unconscionable from a democracy perspective.

You can just use their websites instead. But that does involve looking them up.

Unfortunately there is a lot that they either never publish on their website at all or do so very late.

I can not use it as I do, the same with Facebook, but there are countless others taking disinformation spread on these platforms without bating an eye. Those countless others impact my life, they will vote, they will hate; stochastically it will affect me in some way even if I try to be as far away as I can from these platforms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com