this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
646 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59627 readers
2807 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 163 points 8 months ago (29 children)

The act doesn’t apply to all tech companies, only to those with either a market capitalisation of more than €75bn (£64bn), or having at least 45 million users and €7.5bn annual turnover in the EU.

In effect, this means just Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and ByteDance (owner of TikTok). The fact that five of the six are US companies has, of course, led to complaints that the pesky Europeans have it in for poor defenceless American giants. Cue violins.

The act imposes serious obligations: companies will have to allow third-party apps and app stores on their platforms; provide transparent advertising data; allow users to easily uninstall pre-installed software or apps; enable interoperability between different messaging services, social networks, and other services, allowing users to communicate seamlessly across platforms; and be more transparent about how their algorithms rank and recommend content, products and services.

It also prohibits certain practices by gatekeepers: favouring their own services over third-party ones, for example; engaging in self-preferential activities; and using private data from business users to compete against them. In other words, an end to tech business as usual.

Sweet. What the corrupt US departments couldn’t - and refused to - do.

Member that time micro$quash was in court for a decade to prove they weren’t a monopoly despite being a monopoly, and then after all that the court declared they were a monopoly? Member? And then absolutely sweet fuck-all happened and they’re still out there monoply-ing without any care or hindrance? Yeah.

US, you fucked that up royal. As usual.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 12 points 8 months ago (13 children)

I mean, we got this "choose your default browser" screen for a few years. That solved it, right?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It actually did, solve it, unironically. The concern was that Microsoft was going to de facto take over the HTML standard and make it so that you had to use Internet Explorer and proprietary Microsoft extensions if you wanted to browse the web, eliminating all competition.

Now, more than 20 years later, Internet Explorer is defunct. Microsoft's current browser is built on Chromium, an open source engine that was created by one of its competitors. If anything it's Google that's now the problematic one.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This happened in 2009, when IE had a market share of 56% and declining. IE is (arguably) defunct because it sucked, not because of a one-time, court-mandated popup.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

IE sucked since the beginning, that's not the reason it died.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago

Everything sucked back then.

Then Mozilla started not sucking, then in 2008 Chrome came out and in 2009 when the popup was mandated, IE had declined to 56% market share from 90% highs years earlier.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Back then Chrome didn't exist and they didn't implement the pop up, just assigned some overview and opened some APIs.

However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.

The popup came in 2009.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me they continued to take actions in 2009 as a result of their loss in 2001. "Some overview" continued after the case was decided. Unless there was a subsequent court case I'm unaware of?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The 2009 dispute was in the EU, to begin with.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The didn't cause the browser popup then

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why did I bring up a regulation that the EU imposed on Microsoft, in the comments of an article about regulations that the EU wants to impose on tech giants?

You're right, totally out of context.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)