Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahartmetz | Hacker News Reader

It's funny that they keep trying, it has never once worked. I think US companies are projecting their dislike for regulation and keep being surprised that EU citizens don't agree. We do not love the EU government, but it sometimes does a good thing and we do like these, especially versus the anti-consumer crap that US companies like to pull.

View on HN

we do not love the EU government because there are billions being poured into promoting the discourse that the EU is a bad thing by both private and state actors.

My problem is the lack of democracy through the too-indirect way that the commission is elected. Von der Leyen was an extremely unpopular and horribly incompetent (at least in charge of defense) minister in Germany, then somehow she became president of the EU commission. Her skill seems to be politicking with other politicians. That would not have gotten her elected in an election by the people.

Sometimes its a good thing that people do not elect directly. They participate indirectly though. And there are general rules to follow. So its more stable framework than full public control each election cycle, because the populism happens and if you want to be elected you cant take unpopular decisions which sometimes are needed.

There are unpopular decisions that are actually good, and those that are simply bad for the population but good for people closer to power. I think the latter are more common in basically any system with too little public oversight.

If you are talking about judges, prosecutors or sheriffs I could understand your opinion, but we're talking about a political function here.

Indirect democracy is not really a lack of democracy. But I dislike the way it works now as well and would like for EU elections to be more direct. I'd also like to be able to vote for candidates from other member states.

However changes like these are deeply unpopular as they get interpreted as moving more powers to "Brussels" by right wing media.

Right wing media is usually owned by specific billionaires.

Their agenda isn't that of "ordinary people". Those rather get used for the interests of those "strategic investors".

Less power for Brussels means more power for rich people.

And it is the nation states that fight tooth and nails against more direct elections.

Nation states in the EU follow the direction their politicians get pointed at by the money that gets them elected.

A more powerful EU would mean less power for big corporations and wealthy individuals.

Right now, "EU washing" unpopular policies is a thing. National (usually corporate) interests can make EU laws happen, and when they have, national politicians say "Sorry, our hands are tied - EU law!". So I'm not at all optimistic that the EU political organization, of all things, will reduce corruption just by getting more power. But I do think that more direct elections to powerful EU positions will improve things.

This was really lame cope ten years ago and it's really lame cope now.

Because the European Union has come up with shitty laws and regulations.

It mandated USB for charging everywhere, but didn't do a thing about driving on the right side of the road.

We have the digital markets act, yet when someone tries to send emails to some big American email providers, they have to register first, otherwise they don't even make it to the spam folder. But hey, let's have a big round of applause for fining X/Elon Musk and Meta because we hate them. Who cares about decades old protocols and ways of doing things?

It takes time. And there will always be something to complain. But don't you agree that things are moving in positive direction?

Not quite. There's more and more you have to deal with instead of less. I don't want more laws to read and comply with, I want less.

I bet most people have not read any laws in past year. hell, some have not read any laws in their lives. And no i don't agree that i want fewer laws. By the way, how many laws is enough for you?

Most people don't read any law their entire lifetime and hope for the best. But are you willing to risk it, if you're trying to do something? It does not even have to be complicated, it can be something as simple as having a website. Suddenly you have to deal with GDPR and it's not an easy task, otherwise we wouldn't have so many discussions and consultants, not to mention the fact that some websites prefer to just block European users.

The PDF for GDPR has 88 pages [1]. And it's just one thing. The AI act has another 144 pages [2]. Who's gonna read them?

[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

[2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L...

Well DMCA is 60 pages, do you read it when you are creating a web page?

https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ304/PLAW-105publ304.p...

We have civil code for everyday life, do you think people read that? I bet no, but anyway it describes rules by which people live. And when there is disagreement we open a book and see whos right. Do you think we should not have such rule book?

Blame the shitty tech companies, the DMA and similar attempts in the USA and many other countries stem from them stacking everything in their favour at the cost of everyone else's money, privacy, security and safety.

It's not like regulators were just bored and felt like fucking shit up, there is a nearly-global consensus these companies are exploiting consumers and markets.

Except that DMA didn't do anything for more fundamental problems like the email problem.

No, they just want to have something to brag about or think they know better (Soviet/communist style). Like, we're lazy and tired of having to carry our proprietary iPhone chargers, we know you're too, let's make USB mandatory.

Don't believe the chargers are a good example. There definitely must be some good ones. But Apple is being anti non-apple consumers (and often anti apple consumers, vide ridiculously expensive monitor stand) for a long time, doing everything to make sure nothing non apple can work well with apple products and vice versa.

I can (actually can't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend) imagine why my wife's Air Pods Pro 3 can't supply heart rate data to my phone for exercising. But why can't they report battery level? ffs

Even if Lightning is better in some aspects (USB-C tongues break sometimes), forcing people to have special cables just for apple devices, when every single thing runs on USB-C, feels like done out of spite. And then? Apple devices don't support any fast charging standard. Spite again.

It's hard to see it differently, but there might be better reasons and arguments that I can't or choose not to see. Probably because I don't love the company that forced poor parents to buy their kids expensive phones just so the kids wouldn't get ostracized for not having green or blue bubble in text messages.

If I don't like the product because of its charging mechanism, not reporting battery level etc, I don't buy it.

> USB-C tongues break sometimes

Unlike barrel chargers which are also simpler. No need for fancy electronics and protocols. Let's not forget non-compliant USB chargers. I remember reading about a Chinese mini-PC manufacturer that sold a computer with a charger which provided 19V or so from the start without any negotiation. Hopefully no one tried to use it with another device.

>Let's not forget non-compliant USB chargers. I remember reading about a Chinese mini-PC manufacturer that sold a computer with a charger which provided 19V or so from the start without any negotiation. Hopefully no one tried to use it with another device.

I actually (or somebody close, friend or family, can't recall) did exactly that. It was a few years ago and I don't remember what got fried. Some small electronics. It was a barrel charger and it fit. Too bad that fitting didn't mean the power levels were ok too.

> I don't like the product because of its charging mechanism, not reporting battery level etc, I don't buy it.

Why shouldn't my wife get headphones because a company is a dick and makes them not work with her husband's phone properly? Looks like a dismissive argument trying to excuse malicious business practices. (I'm not in or from US, maybe that's normal and OK there, so sorry for ranting about it, as it might be fine or even good for you if you're invested in Apple). Anyway, why not buy them, headphones work very well for my wife. Other than price not being adjusted to product performance and quality, AirPods Pro 3 are a very good product. HR reporting is a cool feature. And I don't have bud-type earphones, so I borrow hers for exercising.

Back to "don't buy it if you don't like it" argument: it doesn't argument against apple being dicks for making the product purposefully not work with an Android phone. And if it does, please explain it more clearly, I believe I'm not the only one holding the point of view that it just doesn't exonerate them.

As I see it, it's malicious compliance, as there's no laws YET forbidding what they're doing. (Somebody recently RE'd AirPods BT protocol/calls IIRC and found them reporting battery on non standard ?variable name?. He then got Android phone to show battery level after a small modification.

For comparison, I would bet a beer (I see betting more as gambling) that if Samsung created headphones with HR monitor, I would still be able to see battery level and HR in my Oura app on my OnePlus. And vice versa for 1+ headphones on Samsung. Do you see my point?

And for the record, apple has recently released many phones, both low and high end, that weren't overpriced. And I vehemently oppose anyone whom I'll have to tech support later, getting any phone different than apple - for a non technical user these phones are perfect. Good default's. Non customizable - perfect from point of view of tech support. Just works. Just to show that I'm anti anti consumer conduct, not anti apple.

> It mandated USB for charging everywhere, but didn't do a thing about driving on the right side of the road.

You forget that the worst offender took its toys and went away not too long ago.

> fining X/Elon Musk and Meta because we hate them.

They were fined because they broke the law. Many consider these fines, a slap on the wrist. Personally I support much harsher and detrimental punishments in such cases.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying they didn't break the law, I honestly have no idea if they did. I was only saying that some people like the law because it makes people/companies which they hate (possibly for valid reasons) suffer. In other words they like only the sentence.

I don't think this is any corporate conspiracy. The truth is probably more mundane: regulation is treated as obstacle to navigate around with minimal amount of effort, and not a reason to give up on practices that makes money.

A system that leads to bad outcomes is a bad system.

When your system favors people into power that abuse that position instead of furthering the public interest, that provides a feedback signal leading to ever worse people and outcomes.

There is no need for a "conspiracy" to get to a point where it looks like one.

> It's funny that they keep trying, it has never once worked.

Sure it has. Consider cookie banners: widespread malicious faux-compliance from the start, and approximately nothing was done about it for most of a decade, while people were tricked into believing they were GDPR’s fault. Even now when a little has been done about it, the significant majority of cookie banners are very obviously not compliant with GDPR or ePD requirements, and no consequences occur.

Yes Us Companies Are doing this ofc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com