zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. smasha+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-19 16:11:59
The tech community as a whole is dropping the ball by not advocating loudly and openly for adversarial interoperability.

It is a fundamental digital right despite what nonsense-ese is present in any service's egregious terms and conditions.

There needs to be an anti-adversarial interop specific complaint department at the EFF.

Otherwise one day, one of these developers will take the lack of support at its face and choose to defend themselves in court without any (legal) resources.

When the precedents are set that billion dollar megacorps can ruin an interop developers life due to overreaching ToS or some bs about copyright then it'll be too late to cry about it.

Invidious (YouTube), beeper (iMessage), Meta Vs many OSS Devs, etc. etc. etc. largely show that tech's freedom loving stance is not much more than lip service.

Interop projects aren't sexy. The Devs behind them get a pittance if anything. It's not VC-able. Yet instead of praise for the dog work they do we have well-actually-niks berating then in situations like this.

We are now becoming digital beings. We should have digital human rights. Interop is a base level digital human right.

I want to thank you for your work Andre0512 and Long Live hon!

P.s if there any EU digital lawyers out here please reach out to Andre0512 and actually help him please!

replies(3): >>dv_dt+m2 >>hangon+Sf >>marcos+qA
◧
2. dv_dt+m2[view] [source] 2024-01-19 16:24:10
>>smasha+(OP)
It could be a part of the push for right to repair. Farmers have pushed similar interface needs for maintaining advanced farming equipment. This seems very similar.
replies(2): >>smasha+iD >>Gibbon+vX
◧
3. hangon+Sf[view] [source] 2024-01-19 17:20:14
>>smasha+(OP)
I am very ignorant about this topic. Can you please explain what "adversarial interoperability" means? The term sounds very intriguing.
replies(2): >>okwhat+dq >>smasha+DD
◧◩
4. okwhat+dq[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-19 17:56:39
>>hangon+Sf
I intuited the phrase in context to roughly mean that APIs are fair game for respectful contact by everyone including competitors. It wouldn't mean they need to provide a open api spec or make it easy, but it couldn't be a ToS violation or something forbidden to access.
◧
5. marcos+qA[view] [source] 2024-01-19 18:45:49
>>smasha+(OP)
Isn't it more than settled down on the US? The "tech community", whoever you think has any power there, isn't doing anything because the lawyers already overpowered everybody and mounted some unbeatable defenses.

But yeah, things aren't like this all over the world.

◧◩
6. smasha+iD[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-19 18:59:10
>>dv_dt+m2
Interoperability IS right-to-repair for software.

Should Sony decide what you do with your TV? No.

Should Haier decide how you control your AC? NO.

Should Whatsapp decide how you interact with your own account. NO!

Interop devs are the Louis Rossman's/mom & pop repair shops of the software world.

They take whatever redundant software/service you have and enable you to use it as you see fit.

◧◩
7. smasha+DD[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-19 19:01:11
>>hangon+Sf
You can see "Adversarial Interoperability" on Youtube to see talks on this.

This is a good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rimtaSgGz_4

◧◩
8. Gibbon+vX[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-19 20:36:35
>>dv_dt+m2
One of my thoughts is you can have the FTC and IRS issue rules about what qualifies as first sale and doesn't. Anything that fails the company has to count as inventory with a 20 year depreciation schedule. And they're required to pay for disposal.
[go to top]