> Antitrust is the RICO of HN, as far as i can tell.
Not sure what you mean. But I’ll be specific - big companies are abusive because they have too much capital, too many resources (like legal teams), too much protection from competition - basically too much power. YouTube would not need to be the only place for online video content except that it benefits from network effects (creators and users are stuck), bundling (with Google’s ad business), and other anti competitive aspects. I’m sure you can construct the antitrust arguments against the iOS-Android duopoly trivially as well.
So yes, the need for fairness and competition is plenty of justification for antitrust action against Google (and Apple and Amazon and Microsoft). I hope that takes the form of new legislation to make it much easier to do something to fix these problems, unlike current antitrust law which just results in performative lawsuits that drag out for years only to result in a minor fine that achieves nothing.
> Based on what, exactly? Other than your assertion, can you actually cite any cases/law that says this?
I said they have no right in the casual sense, which has a broader meaning to most people. It’s obvious they shouldn’t have a right to control what you do client side. I don’t care what the law says, or what the technicalities are. There’s absolutely no reason to limit discourse on HN, or the outrage this deserves, to only what the law currently is.
> At a very base level, it's a derivative work - they have the literal right to decide which derivative works they approve of and don't.
Is me tuning the color balance on my TV a “derivative work”? Obviously changing client side code is not a derivative work.
> I assume next you will discover you also can't just take signals going through the air around you (satellite TV, cellular, etc) and just do whatever you want with them either.
Why not? I’m allowed to collect information from the air and do whatever I want with it, since it is just data, which I’m allowed to record in public spaces, and data is speech.
"I said they have no right in the casual sense, which has a broader meaning to most people."
So you said it's a antitrust violation in the casual sense?
Whatever that means?
This is some interesting doubling down i guess.
As for the rest, i suggest you go learn a little about the law, despite your flip-flopping about whether you are complaining about the law or the "casual sense"
" Obviously changing client side code is not a derivative work."
You keep using this phrase obviously, as if it makes your argument for you. It does not. You still have not made a single cogent argument here, whether we are talking about the current or whyanything should change.
"Why not? I’m allowed to collect information from the air and do whatever I want with it, since it is just data, which I’m allowed to record in public spaces, and data is speech"
Lots of legal assertions in here, can you disambiguate for me which are just "casual"?
Not sure what you mean. But I’ll be specific - big companies are abusive because they have too much capital, too many resources (like legal teams), too much protection from competition - basically too much power. YouTube would not need to be the only place for online video content except that it benefits from network effects (creators and users are stuck), bundling (with Google’s ad business), and other anti competitive aspects. I’m sure you can construct the antitrust arguments against the iOS-Android duopoly trivially as well.
So yes, the need for fairness and competition is plenty of justification for antitrust action against Google (and Apple and Amazon and Microsoft). I hope that takes the form of new legislation to make it much easier to do something to fix these problems, unlike current antitrust law which just results in performative lawsuits that drag out for years only to result in a minor fine that achieves nothing.
> Based on what, exactly? Other than your assertion, can you actually cite any cases/law that says this?
I said they have no right in the casual sense, which has a broader meaning to most people. It’s obvious they shouldn’t have a right to control what you do client side. I don’t care what the law says, or what the technicalities are. There’s absolutely no reason to limit discourse on HN, or the outrage this deserves, to only what the law currently is.
> At a very base level, it's a derivative work - they have the literal right to decide which derivative works they approve of and don't.
Is me tuning the color balance on my TV a “derivative work”? Obviously changing client side code is not a derivative work.
> I assume next you will discover you also can't just take signals going through the air around you (satellite TV, cellular, etc) and just do whatever you want with them either.
Why not? I’m allowed to collect information from the air and do whatever I want with it, since it is just data, which I’m allowed to record in public spaces, and data is speech.