- From: Cory Doctorow <cory@eff.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:40:38 -0800
- To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>, public-interop-remedies@w3.org
Thanks for this. I think it's maybe missing a point, namely that preventing a private SDO from being captured, preventing a Big Tech platform from cheating in its implementation of that SDO's work product, and preventing a platform from cheating in making a requirements-satisfying alternative to that work product all require the same kind of oversight. IOW, I think that if we stipulate that our regulator can stop FB from making a bad implementation of a standard API, then it's not consistent to say that the regulator couldn't stop FB from making a bad alternative based on the requirements. It's not a matter of trusting states or firms more - rather, it's about maximizing flexibility (and thus adaptability to changing circumstances - IOW, durability). Cory > > In the end, it is also a matter of legal cultures. European regulation tends to be more top-down and prescriptive in detail, while the American tradition is more about limiting as much as possible any necessary constraints to individual freedom. Also, Europe tends to assume that government-led processes are by definition capture-resistant, while the effects of heavy lobbying are given for granted in Washington. Solutions lie somewhere within this range of deviations :-) On 2/15/22 02:20, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > >> Il 14/02/2022 20:27 Cory Doctorow <cory@eff.org> ha scritto: >> >> Again, in the spirit of disaggregating the tech/policy questions into bite-sized standalone pieces, I think we can add "design a referee role" to the list of separate, vital questions, which (in my formulation, at least) now stands at: >> >> 1. A safe harbour regime that allows adoption of a standard API or compliance with the standard's requirements; >> >> 2. A capture-resistant process for setting those requirements; >> >> 3. A capture-resistant process for policing both standards compliance and requirements compliance. >> >> What do you think? > > In the end, it is also a matter of legal cultures. European regulation tends to be more top-down and prescriptive in detail, while the American tradition is more about limiting as much as possible any necessary constraints to individual freedom. Also, Europe tends to assume that government-led processes are by definition capture-resistant, while the effects of heavy lobbying are given for granted in Washington. Solutions lie somewhere within this range of deviations :-) >
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2022 19:40:58 UTC