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

Technology

59982 readers
2768 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 163 points 9 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.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub 37 points 9 months ago (8 children)

You remember how all the US politicians are funded by the same huge corporations and rich people who all benefit from the regulators doing nothing but pretending to care?

Remember how the politicians pander to Americans by blaming rich people for all of life's problems and saying they'll make them pay their fair share, but those politicians have multiple houses and blatantly conduct insider trading every day, but Americans still vote for them time after time?

I'd like to say you could just not use their products, but that means you have to replace windows with some other os, not buy a major manufacturer cell phone, or do much else 🤷

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This right here. It is so far gone, and deeply entrenched into how society works at fundamental levels, that it is impossible to avoid any mega corporations and their influence on how we live (not just tech companies too).

I know that pointing fingers does nothing to help, but this really is Reagan’s fault with his so-called trickle down economics.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub -3 points 9 months ago

I hear what you're saying. I counter with low effort LLM reply. I don't live by what LLMs say, but they generate some good starting points to go and do much more narrow research.

I don't think it's entirely Reagan's fault, I think the idea existed before him. He just sold the idea to the American public. So I guess I could fault him for either believing in it, or just saying he did to support the desires of the wealthy.

this really is Reagan’s fault with his so-called trickle down economics

CLAUDE 3:

"Did any American politicians, economists, or general capitalism principles regarding 'trickle down economics' exists before president Reagan? What examples of trickle down economics existed before him? Did he invent the idea, or just the phrase?"

The concept of "trickle-down economics" predates President Ronald Reagan and his administration's economic policies. However, the specific phrase "trickle-down economics" became more widely used during Reagan's presidency to describe his economic policies, which were based on the idea that reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy would stimulate economic growth, creating more jobs and wealth that would eventually "trickle down" to the broader population.

Examples of trickle-down economic principles before Reagan include:

  1. The "Horse and Sparrow" theory, attributed to the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in the early 19th century, which suggested that if the rich were allowed to get richer, their increased consumption would benefit the working class.

  2. In the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, advocated for lower taxes on the wealthy and businesses, arguing that it would spur economic growth.

  3. The "Laissez-Faire" economic policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which favored minimal government intervention and regulation, with the belief that unfettered capitalism would benefit society as a whole.

While Reagan did not invent the underlying economic theories, his administration's policies and rhetoric, particularly the use of the phrase "trickle-down economics," brought the concept to the forefront of public discourse and became closely associated with his presidency.

It's important to note that the effectiveness and fairness of trickle-down economics have been heavily debated among economists and policymakers, with critics arguing that it primarily benefits the wealthy and does not necessarily lead to broad-based economic growth or income redistribution.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)