Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That is not how the European Union works. One of the core goals of the EU is to guarantee the European single market. One of the core principles of the single market is the Freedom to establish and provide services [1]. The Apple/Google duopoly have effectively created a market within the single market where the core principles of the single market do not apply anymore.

Tech has a strong tendency to favor outcomes with only a handful large players that make competition impossible due to network effects, etc., distorting the market. The Digital Markets Act was made to address this problem.

IANAL, but Google's Android changes seem like a fairly clear violation of the DMA.

This is typically hard for people from the US to grasp (I saw that you are not originally from the US though). In Europe, capitalism is not the end goal, the goal of capitalism is to serve the people and if that fails, it needs to be regulated.

---

As an aside, the lengths people go to defend a company with $402.836B yearly revenue :).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market#Four_fr...

Yes. I am effectively asking you what the moral justification for DMA is. I understand that lawmakers can make whatever law they want. I understand they made it. I am curious how people who agree this should be possible think of this from a moral angle, especially as engineers who make their living by creating intellectual property and probably wouldn’t want to see control of it seized randomly

The moral argument is that vertically integrated monopolies threaten the rights of consumers, who are human beings. Corporations are legal fictions and their "rights" are another convenient fiction to align incentives. They carry zero moral weight.

They are 100% free to not sell to European customers

The moral justification is that I am a citizen, and can demand the laws I want. When enough people think like me, we can actually make it a law. By holding the smartphone OS oligopoly these companies hold a lot of power on the people. I do not like that. Hence I like laws that try to change that.

> especially as engineers who make their living by creating intellectual property and probably wouldn’t want to see control of it seized randomly

If these people try to use their intellectual property to control my device and hence my ability to do things, I want to have a say what they do. Yes, that is what software is: directions to machines. I own the machine, hence I want a say what it does. You are free to keep your intellectual property for yourself, if you want to.

There are no absolute morals. But I think in general healthy societies are arranged around the ideas that people should have: the basics of living (housing, food, vacation, and some luxory), agency, and equal opportunities.

It should be clear that having a small number of companies murder all competition and personal freedoms (like doing what you want to do with something you own like a phone) are in contrast to these basic values.

---

Or the alternative, more blunt answer: it does not require a moral justification. EU citizens directly elected the EP, the EP ratified the DMA. So Google can either comply or leave the EU as a market (which they wont do because it's too large and others would be happy to take it).

At some point free markets become fiction. There's no financially viable way to start competing businesses in markets as entrenched as mobile OSes. Otherwise this would have happened. And if that becomes anti consumers, then the consumers start changing the rules the companies operate under. Because in a democracy we have more consumers than CEOs,so they vote with majority.

(This obviously simplifies things, but ultimately we as humans still haven't found the one and only true philosophy or moral, and maybe that's not possible (I'm no philosopher))

I'd ask the inverse of the question: morally, should a single gatekeeper have the right to deny two consenting parties the ability for one to run the other's software?

Especially when that ability has been established practice and depended upon for decades? And the gate-kept device in question is many users' primary gateway to the modern world?

There's nuance here, of course - I'm not morally obliged to help you run Doom on your Tamagotchi just because you want to do so. But many people around the world rely on an Android device as their only personal computing device (and this is arguably more true for Android than it is for iOS). And to install myself as an arbiter of what code they can and cannot run, with full knowledge that I could at any time be required to leverage that capability at the behest of a government those worldwide users never agreed to be dependent on? That would be a morally fraught system for me to create.

> especially as engineers who make their living by creating intellectual property and probably wouldn’t want to see control of it seized randomly

The premise of your question seems surprising.

1. In what sense the DMA enables seizure of control of intellectual property? I haven't heard of seizure being part of this.

2. In what sense DMA does so randomly? The DMA's rules seem to be written down, not random. Where are you seeing randomness?

Also:

3. One intention of regulation is that you don't want one (or a few) entities, regardless of what they are, to gain too much power over your citizens' lives. They want power to be distributed, just like to America's 3 branches of federal government were designed to distribute power. Could you explain what specifically you find difficult to understand about people finding it immoral to give a single entity too much power?

The moral argument is that private companies aren't elected and Google/Apple aren't supposed to have the power they have, they aren't government bodies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com