| |
| ▲ | softwaredoug 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Anything that relies on gov't can be undone by gov't. Or weaponized by gov't. We need resilience that's hard to regulate or undo. | | |
| ▲ | tremon 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You already had resilience that was very hard to undo: three independent branches of government, indirect elections via the electoral college, separation of church and state, strong protections for freedom of speech, independent journalism. Yet you still managed to have it undone. What does a non-government solution look like to you that can't be undone by the People? | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The real problem isn't that it was undone by "the People", but rather that the surveillance industry effectively formed a fourth branch of government that grew and grew, then finally had enough sway over the People to convince them to undo it. To head off what we're currently staring down, we needed a US equivalent of the GDPR and enforcement against anti-competitive bundling 15+ years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | intended 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You (and the rest of the world) are not really swimming in a sea og alternatives. If government regulation is the tool which can bring the amount of torque needed to loosen the screws on competition, then government is the tool you have to use. Regulation is also being developed around the world to figure out how to address the challenges being thrown up. The DSA and GDPR are being studied and better policy will result. Government has connotations in America, that end up derailing any conversation about it. Usually at some point, it gets pointed out that Tech is booming in America, while it’s moribund in Europe, and do you really want to be Europe? This shifts the conversation to what kind of money you want to make. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > by making sure that compatibility is enshrined into law, so that competition occurs, rather than walled gardens Compatibility isn't the problem. CCTV is pretty much an open standard. Folks are choosing Ring and Nest over open systems. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | CCTV is a different market that requires a bunch of setup rather than merely being plug and play consumer electronics. The compatibility there is good for that market. The compatibility there in the context of Ring/Nest is irrelevant. Compatibility in terms of the Ring/Nest ecosystem would be the separation out as separate product categories, and prohibition against anti-competitive bundling of these four aspects: hardware device, backend storage service, client app (mobile/weapp) that interacts with both, and any background "application"" functionality (image recognition, sharing with neighbors/police, etc). If Google or Amazon released a product in each of these categories that's probably fine, as long as each were only built with documentation publicly available to every other developer. The point is if Amazon storage + Amazon social features were still wildly popular-by-default leading to this type of commercial, people could easily switch to alternatives that respected privacy. |
|
|
