Comment by dataflow
1 month ago
Can you make an argument as to how this is different from having to have an account with, say, your ISP?
1 month ago
Can you make an argument as to how this is different from having to have an account with, say, your ISP?
A few points:
1. It's not necessarily different. Your ISP has monopolistic power over you, and it should be regulated more aggressively.
2. A non-mobile ISP is currently much less important than an Apple/Google account for interacting with modern society, and less important than it was even a decade ago. If all 1.5 of my available home ISPs turned evil I could manage just fine without them.
3. Given the relative public perceptions this feels weird to say, but Comcast and their ilk are much less problematic than the Apple/Google monopolies. You can largely just pay for internet (plus an extra 10-40% from scammy business practices) and do whatever you want to do, with the analytics they're selling about you being less invasive than those which Apple/Google use.
Your ISP is an utility, it doesn't hold your de-facto identity.
Google and Apple increasingly become the entity required to identify yourself, either directly ("login with Google/Apple to participate") or indirectly ("use our App on iOS/Android to confirm your identity and participate")
You have many ISPs to choose from. There are not many "Googles" nor "Apples" to choose from.
My apartment, smack bang in the middle of Manhattan, has a single coax cable opened by Spectrum, and is the only option for me to get reliable internet connection. I have no choice but to (1) sign whatever their ToS are, (2) pay whatever they want to charge, and (3) have them do what they want with my metadata. I’ve decided it’s not the hill I want to die on, but no, I don’t have many ISPs to choose from.
You have at very least: * Mobile connection, a few carriers * Starlink/Eutelsat
It's not perfect, but nowhere near Google/Apple duopoly. Also this is very local US issue, solvable on city level regulation, while smartphones are everywhere.
4 replies →
Doesn’t Manhattan have radio based ISPs like 5G providers? Perhaps not ideal but far from a single ISP provider.
Depending on where you live, a lot of times you don’t many to choose from. Maybe 2-3, but sometimes only one with fast enough speeds that it becomes the only option.
Where?
Cellphone providers + Starlink mean there’s more than 3 options in basically every US home.
1 reply →
We're talking about participating in society not Netflix. There are a lot more options for that, including mobile and even good old dial up.
So they are effectively utilities and must be regulated accordingly.
I have exactly one to choose from. Two thirds of americans households have exactly two, exactly the same number as the count of googles and apples.
Than your region has a problem that your government should work to fix. Just like the one with Google/Apple.
That's not a universal problem though, so random people on the internet won't relate.
Two thirds of Americans could connect to the internet via:
- Starlink
- AT&T wireless
- T-Mobile wireless
- Verizon wireless
The choices of fixed ISPs is often more limited (in my area, the physical options are AT&T copper, Xfinity cable, Monkeybrains wireless).
If ISPs pose a similar problem, that still doesn't minimize the Apple/Google problem.
This question is a non sequitur.
No one is arguing for using ISP-hosted accounts as an alternative.
The core problem isn't even rooted in identity per se, it's about platform owners actively working to limit access to essential information from platforms they cannot profit from.
Even granting the most cherubic motives, this ongoing behavior is atrocious on it's face and should be prevented by any means, including competition, rule making and legislation.