Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is a slippery slope. Who defines these universal data types? And if they only are "defined" when someone gets big and powerful, doesn't that reduce the incentive to innovate and build big businesses?

The idea of mandating any such rule is not the solution. It's antithetical to how markets should work.

There's been no company that's managed to dominate forever. LinkedIn, CL, Netflix will be no different. Someone or ones will attack them (perhaps orthogonally) and ultimately they will lose their dominance. That's what happens to incumbents. The market takes care of them. Note: this disruption may or may not be quick.



> That's what happens to incumbents. The market takes care of them.

I'm not so sure. Communication tools are fundamentally different than most other products, because their primary value is the number of other people reachable through the service. This isn't true of most other industries, where you can drive a Toyota and I can drive a Ford and everyone is happy.

When your a whole market is based on the ability to interact with other people in some way, and a single company can flip interoperability on and off like a light switch, it has the potential to be a dangerous monopoly. The government stepped in and broke up Ma Bell because of this.


I don't buy it. In the case of CL or the other companies mentioned (Netflix and LinkedIn), calling any of them communication tools is not really close to an apt description/characterization.

If we characterize them as communication tools, we are using a pretty loose definition. Moreover, inviting regulators (via their involvement in some sort of monopoly breakdown) into the proverbial henhouse is a nice mix of anti-free enterprise, anti-entrepreneurship and misguided/naive.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: