Sorry, I must be doing something wrong, because in this article by the globally respected journalist organization Reuters, I cannot find a description of how Google abused its market position, a link to the court decision, or even which court or judge made the ruling - the closest I could get was "a Berlin court".
I thought the AI pane was convenient. Then I wanted to try a different AI service, and couldn't do so without losing all the content in the currently open pane. And I realized - this would be so much better if it was just a regular tab. Like we already have.
"We" here refers to Americans. It's perfectly normal to be more specific about things that are nearby, and more broad about things far away. That's why Kilimanjaro is in "Africa", while the Golden Gate Bridge is in "San Francisco".
> [archive.today] replied within a few hours. The response was straightforward: the illegal content would be removed (and we verified that it was), and they had never received any previous notifications about those URLs.
> Moreover, they hinted that Archive.today had been targeted by a campaign of “serial” complaints, supposedly from French organizations, sent to various companies and institutions that could potentially harm the site. They even shared a link demonstrating a complaint similar to the one we had received.
Shows why intermediary-liability laws are so insidious - most intermediaries would simply minimize legal risk and censor anyone that someone complains over. Entirely predictable when not censoring risks jail, while censoring too much carries zero risk.
In fact it has been predicted and loudly warned about before the passage of every such law, so the only possible conclusion is that censorship of law-abiding websites was the intention.
And where has such retreat led us? Rootable Androids are vanishing, Google is set to prevent side-loading entirely, and countless apps refuse to work on rooted devices.
You either force the companies to stop, to restore your control over your devices, or be dragged by the uninformed consumer masses into slavery.
> because the governments of countries where such scams are widespread will hold Google responsible.
How many virus infections and scams was Microsoft held responsible for? What about Red Hat, or Debian?
And at least let Google plainly state this, instead of inventing legal theories based on vague hints from their press releases, to explain why their self-serving user-hostile actions are actually legally mandatory.
If it’s more profitable to screw over the customers and someone gets away with it then everyone has to do the same to stay profitable.
A really cool little ISP I knew was chill about all things except they required you to rent their equipment. Over time you’d end up paying for that router hundreds of times. I cornered the CEO and asked him about it “our competitors do it so we have to do it to remain competitive” he realized it was shitty, didn’t want to be shitty. But felt he had to.
This is why we cannot allow intolerable behavior by corporations. If we allow it once we allow it forever and build a future that is more dystopian hellscape for every right and freedom we give up. In this case the right to repair which is an inalienable right. Because if you can’t repair it and you depend on it, you don’t own it, it owns you.
Several times people here on HN dismissed factually accurate articles I posted, that cited all their claims to trusted, non-controversial sources [1], because they thought the article publisher was too right-wing. The only way such dismissals stop, is if they are applied evenly.
[1] E.g. government statistics, or public announcements by a university regarding their programs, in an article about what kind of programs that university offers. I.e. sources nobody disputed for those claims.
> Yet their demands are almost entirely about limiting restrictions imposed by Google Play.
Because most people only ever use the Google Play store. Epic can invest all the effort they want into their own store, but that won't help if the audience is elsewhere. You are basically making the "just build your own Twitter/Facebook" argument - it's about the audience, not the technology.
My take is that the biggest feature of the Play store and Steam is their collection and moderation of user reviews at scale - it is this that Epic are unable or unwilling to take on.
