Those of us old enough to remember BBS servers or even rainbow banners often go down the nostalgia hole about how the internet was better “back in the day” than it is now as a handful o…
Another way to encourage interoperability is to use the government to hold out a carrot in addition to the stick. Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability. President Lincoln required standard tooling for bullets and rifles during the Civil War, so there’s a long history of requiring this already. If companies don’t want to play nice, they’ll lose out on some lucrative contracts, “but no one forces a tech company to do business with the federal government.”
That’s actually a very interesting idea. This benefits the govt as much as anyone else too. It reduces switching costs for govt tech.
Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.
Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.
I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means? Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
Its the whole point of this point in this thread. A set of standards the company has to meet to be able to do government work.
Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
Google is, so is Microsoft as is Amazon which is also the point of this post. They had to meet the security and interoperability standards to get the government work. No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject… Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
“Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.
No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
Oh, honey…
Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article
I don’t know how to help you if can’t see that’s nowhere to be found.
It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
That word is not there either.
The word it does have is “could”, meaning does not currently.
it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified
Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.
Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.
I’m talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that “through government procurement laws, governments” DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m confused how you’re spending so much effort in a conversation and you’re not able to connect basic concepts.
Article premise: “Wouldn’t it be great if X exists?”
Me: “X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp.”
Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?
Can confirm, I’ve worked for a company doing govt contract work and I really don’t know what it’d take for us to have walked away. They can dictate whatever terms they like and still expect to find plenty of companies happy to bid for contracts I think.
Did you also have a robustly enshittified consumer business?
I’m thinking of his classic users —> advertisers —> shareholders model and struggling to come up with companies that have that model but also thrive on government contracts.
Yelp is a pretty classic case of enshittification. What government contracts do they have?
That’s fair, and government work can feel kind of like its own parallel business ecosystem in some ways. Sort of like how most of us think of the shops and businesses that are visible to us but not the massive B2B ecosystem just under the surface.
But I think the hope is that gov can standardize and define a certain net positive thing, and use its contracts to start requiring that thing, slowly making it more widespread and therefore common. Ideally the kinks get ironed out over time, and eventually it’s in a state where you can make the leap and start to require it be in place for any application / service above a certain user count.
Bit pie in the sky, but we should be at least trying to find ways to use govt to improve our situation. Things at policy level that don’t require chronically status quo politicians to vote in our best interests.
I’ve had to implement wave after wave of compliance with European laws in the last several years. We tend to just comply with something like GDPR everywhere because that’s simpler and it’s a best practice. But without the teeth of legislation we’d never bother. There’s always too much to do. I would have a hard time doing something that’s better for consumers but takes a lot of effort or might even undermine our ability to monetize as aggressively as we choose to. Not without those teeth. Not a chance. Even with teeth, tech companies often find some shitty way to meet the minimum bar but really do nothing. We must offer an API? Okay. It has almost nothing in it, but enough to say we did something. We’d never stand up an API that competitors or scammers could benefit from.
Oof, well, point taken and sorry for your loss lol. I hear where you’re coming from. And I’m sure we’d get a worst of both worlds situation here in the US where we spent a ton of time and money developing whatever standards and definitions, and then we make it an optional guideline like you’re saying and it never goes anywhere.
Dunno. The fundamental problem is tech is always able to move faster and smarter than legislation.
If I’m saying anything, it’s that legislation is the one thing tech can’t get around. Europe has put out a lot of legislation that tech hates, some good, some bad. But tech complies. The government contracts thing won’t hurt - it could possibly help legislation come about in one way: if government contracts force a handful of companies to do something, at least that shows the thing can be done. That’s kind of important because tech loves to complain that what this legislation calls for will be impossible!
I’m mostly describing an idea where the contracts approach takes care of the necessary iteration to get a given tech policy sorted, and then legislation comes in to require it.
My country can’t even get some basic stuff done, though, so realistically I may as well be writing fan-fic, lol
That’s actually a very interesting idea. This benefits the govt as much as anyone else too. It reduces switching costs for govt tech.
Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.
Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.
I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means? Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
Its the whole point of this point in this thread. A set of standards the company has to meet to be able to do government work.
Google is, so is Microsoft as is Amazon which is also the point of this post. They had to meet the security and interoperability standards to get the government work. No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject…
Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…
Oh, honey…
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
“Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.
Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?
I don’t know how to help you if can’t see that’s nowhere to be found.
That word is not there either.
The word it does have is “could”, meaning does not currently.
Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.
I’m talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that “through government procurement laws, governments” DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m confused how you’re spending so much effort in a conversation and you’re not able to connect basic concepts.
Article premise: “Wouldn’t it be great if X exists?”
Me: “X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp.”
Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?
Can confirm, I’ve worked for a company doing govt contract work and I really don’t know what it’d take for us to have walked away. They can dictate whatever terms they like and still expect to find plenty of companies happy to bid for contracts I think.
Did you also have a robustly enshittified consumer business?
I’m thinking of his classic users —> advertisers —> shareholders model and struggling to come up with companies that have that model but also thrive on government contracts.
Yelp is a pretty classic case of enshittification. What government contracts do they have?
That’s fair, and government work can feel kind of like its own parallel business ecosystem in some ways. Sort of like how most of us think of the shops and businesses that are visible to us but not the massive B2B ecosystem just under the surface.
But I think the hope is that gov can standardize and define a certain net positive thing, and use its contracts to start requiring that thing, slowly making it more widespread and therefore common. Ideally the kinks get ironed out over time, and eventually it’s in a state where you can make the leap and start to require it be in place for any application / service above a certain user count.
Bit pie in the sky, but we should be at least trying to find ways to use govt to improve our situation. Things at policy level that don’t require chronically status quo politicians to vote in our best interests.
I’ve had to implement wave after wave of compliance with European laws in the last several years. We tend to just comply with something like GDPR everywhere because that’s simpler and it’s a best practice. But without the teeth of legislation we’d never bother. There’s always too much to do. I would have a hard time doing something that’s better for consumers but takes a lot of effort or might even undermine our ability to monetize as aggressively as we choose to. Not without those teeth. Not a chance. Even with teeth, tech companies often find some shitty way to meet the minimum bar but really do nothing. We must offer an API? Okay. It has almost nothing in it, but enough to say we did something. We’d never stand up an API that competitors or scammers could benefit from.
Oof, well, point taken and sorry for your loss lol. I hear where you’re coming from. And I’m sure we’d get a worst of both worlds situation here in the US where we spent a ton of time and money developing whatever standards and definitions, and then we make it an optional guideline like you’re saying and it never goes anywhere.
Dunno. The fundamental problem is tech is always able to move faster and smarter than legislation.
If I’m saying anything, it’s that legislation is the one thing tech can’t get around. Europe has put out a lot of legislation that tech hates, some good, some bad. But tech complies. The government contracts thing won’t hurt - it could possibly help legislation come about in one way: if government contracts force a handful of companies to do something, at least that shows the thing can be done. That’s kind of important because tech loves to complain that what this legislation calls for will be impossible!
I think we’re on the same page :)
I’m mostly describing an idea where the contracts approach takes care of the necessary iteration to get a given tech policy sorted, and then legislation comes in to require it.
My country can’t even get some basic stuff done, though, so realistically I may as well be writing fan-fic, lol
Yeah that could be of use.