- From: Cory Doctorow <doctorow@craphound.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:34:02 -0800
- To: hellekin <how@zoethical.com>, public-interop-remedies@w3.org
Thanks, Hellekin! I guess I'm still trying to figure out why it's harder to police: a) A requirements process that produces a standard that addresses monopolization; and b) A standards process that honestly reflects those requirements; and c) An implementation that does not subvert the standard (say, through throttling, errors, IDS false positives, etc) Than all of the above and a requirements-satisfying implementation. In particular, it feels like all the real expense - the ongoing expense, that is - is in c), and that would be constant irrespective of whether it relates to a standards-defined API or a requirements-satisfying one. Cory > > I still think that anything that will bring more work to compliance enforcers than to the institutions that need to be regulated will aggravate the situation, and plays in favor of the industry that must be regulated. It's simple energetic logic. You can't have n institutions to regulate and one enforcer to watch them all. It won't work. It does not work for finance, it won't work for tech giants. > > == > hk > > .
Received on Friday, 25 February 2022 17:34:22 UTC