<![CDATA[@EUCommission]]>@EUCommission

The Digital Markets Act is a nice idea but it's ignoring how these platforms became so powerful. The problem is that other big entities use them as their sole (or primary) means of communication.

How about defining a set of rules that apply to:

  • All governments
  • All companies over a certain EU turnover.
  • All companies providing essential services (e.g. banking, utilities).

Where the rules are, by the end of 2027:

  • They may not require customers to create an account or share data with a third party to communicate with them.
  • If they distribute an application for any platform, they must do so via two independent channels.
  • Applications must not depend on anything other than the core platform.

Where 'independent' means: does not depend on any approvals from the same vendor.

This would mean that no big organisation in these places would be able to ship apps via the Apple App Store. None of them would be able to ship Android apps that depended on Google Play Services and none of them would be able to ship Android apps at all with Google's proposed lock down mechanism.

And then, suddenly, you have compliance departments in a bunch of companies with deep pockets lobbying Google and Apple to provide an alternative mechanism for distribution.

Note: These are exactly the same as the rules I proposed 20 years ago. If they had been enacted back then, I suspect the DMA would not have been necessary.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/7d426a56-286e-4b6b-adcc-c8b070dae451/@eucommissionRSS for NodeSun, 18 Oct 2026 22:22:25 GMTMon, 05 Oct 2026 12:09:56 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:06:24 GMT]]>@JohanEmpa

I don't think the places I wrote about them 20 years ago still exist, but I can.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/117388685085399764https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/117388685085399764Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:06:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:04:45 GMT]]>@gmacon

No, you've correctly spotted why laws are harder to write than toots. That said, I think the example here actually doesn't matter because, according to the CRA, if you want to ship an open-source library then you are responsible for that code.

But the intended wording was third-party services that would count as sharing data with other entities under the GDPR.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/117388678637510599https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/117388678637510599Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:04:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:01:27 GMT]]>@gmacon @david_chisnall The way it read to me was more along the lines of prohibiting service A requiring service B, not prohibiting App A from using Library B which doesn't in turn depend on service B.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://social.treehouse.systems/users/krutonium/statuses/117388665653321436https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://social.treehouse.systems/users/krutonium/statuses/117388665653321436Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:01:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:57:29 GMT]]>@david_chisnall

These rules as written would appear to prohibit applications from using open source libraries. Say you wanted to have your app scan barcodes for some reason: you wouldn't be able to pull in zxing, you'd have to implement it from scratch since that's a dependency on something not part of the core platform. Have I misunderstood something here?

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://indieweb.social/users/gmacon/statuses/117388650068849705https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://indieweb.social/users/gmacon/statuses/117388650068849705Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:57:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:16:07 GMT]]>@david_chisnall Sounds good. Have you written more about these proposals somewhere else?

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.green/users/JohanEmpa/statuses/117388487398234642https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.green/users/JohanEmpa/statuses/117388487398234642Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:16:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:44:35 GMT]]>@jbqueru @EUCommission

Great example of why this is necessary. Transport infrastructure would definitely be in the 'essential services' category for something like this.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/117388363393352627https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/117388363393352627Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:44:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:40:59 GMT]]>@david_chisnall @EUCommission I'm sitting here with an electric car, unable to charge on certain chargers or to communicate between my phone and my car, because the configuration of my Google account makes Googe decide that I can't be given access to the necessary applications. And I'm running a genuine supported Google phone with a proper Google account and an unmodified Google operating system. The car maker and the charger networks don't give me access outside of Google's store.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://floss.social/users/jbqueru/statuses/117388349223330419https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://floss.social/users/jbqueru/statuses/117388349223330419Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:40:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:27:36 GMT]]>@david_chisnall @EUCommission instead of forcing Apple to play just create a niche for good stuff to grow. Cause for the past several years it feels like eu tries to do “let’s strangle everyone with regulations, except of the Siemenses of the world who already have an army of lawyers to deal with it”

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://c3d2.social/users/oxapentane/statuses/117388296626818291https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://c3d2.social/users/oxapentane/statuses/117388296626818291Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:27:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:17:23 GMT]]>@david_chisnall @EUCommission imho even better solution not to add to the endless pile of red tape, but just create the market. If you are an EU bureaucrat/want to get that sweet sweet eu contract money then you are forbidden to use American hyperscalers. Suddenly there’s a steady market for graphene’d Motorolas and Eos/fairphones, also bringing prices down for consumers.

And small businesses not contracting the gov do not need to figure out how to be compliant to another 900 page monster à la cra

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://c3d2.social/users/oxapentane/statuses/117388256447172361https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://c3d2.social/users/oxapentane/statuses/117388256447172361Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:17:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to @EUCommission on Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:16:20 GMT]]>I couldn't agree more. This is an excellent way to solve the monopolistic tech corps.

It's also elagent in NOT leaning into technical standards bodies.

Just tell the big tech consumers to have truly independent means to interact with their end customers. Leave it to the overall public to figure out the HOW.

Probably a great way to spur more tech control in the EU

Dare I actually catch up on the DMA texts?

@david_chisnall @EUCommission

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://partyon.xyz/users/nullagent/statuses/117388252341060859https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://partyon.xyz/users/nullagent/statuses/117388252341060859Mon, 05 Oct 2026 12:16:20 GMT