4 ms·

Yes, apple has made some questionable decisions. But Facebook has made downright unethical decisions. I am not trying to "what-about-it" their mistakes, however

Yes, apple has made some questionable decisions. But Facebook has made downright unethical decisions. I am not trying to "what-about-it" their mistakes, however for the amount of effort they put in to ensure user privacy and security and also for the sheer delight of using their products, I am glad they are a 1T company and I hope they continue to be so. Imagine FB controlling the smartphone, how much privacy would someone have then ?

syshum 8y ago
See I believe Apple makes down right unethical decisions as well, like when they sue refreshers and repair shops... When they threaten to sue Youtubers who are educating people on how to repair their devices When they lobby aka payoff governments to prevent right to repair laws When they refuse to release tools and information that allow owners access to their hardware When they refuse to acknowledge hardware design flaws or stand behind their products... I could go on but the point is the idea that Facebook makes unethical decisions but Apple does not depends on what one considered ethical. Walled gardens to me are unethical so i do not buy products in walled gardens. Like wise I do not accept having my data sold as a commodity so I never joined facebook. They likely have a shadow profile on me, which I do find unethical, but most people are complaining about them selling data they themselves gave to facebook in exchange for a free service, I do not find that to be unethical. People that created an account with Facebook, for free, should have suspected this.
- another-one-off 8y ago
  In semi-rare cases, majorities organise against minorities. If that happens and the majority gets access to the data stored in something like Facebook's databases, it will be catastrophic. We can't say what minority it will be either. Rich people? Gypsies? Foreigners? Farmers? Poor people? They've all been persecuted groups at some point or another in some country. This isn't comparable to something like not being able to repair my phone, requiring me to buy a new phone.
  - syshum 8y ago
    ohh please, that is hyperbolic to the extreme. The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, enough that their life would be threatened (as you imply) simply because someone gained access to their facebook profile. Me not having access to information on my device impacts me today, in reality. Your statement is a far fetched unrealistic projection of a dystopian world that I have no reason to entertain outside of fictional novel
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, People don’t have to specifically share the information with Facebook. You can infer a lot about people based on thier friends graph, thier likes, and FB tracks you across the web. You can tell which income percentile people most likely fall in just by the movies they said they liked (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey-poupon-and-the-cultural-divide https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey...).
- davidrm 8y ago
  i applaude you to sticking to your principles and voting with your dollar, however i do not share your sentiment about walled gardens. and when it comes to ethics, same argument can be made for apple with regarda to users controlling their hardware. (if) you are informed about the limitations of said hardware and general terms under which you bought it, then they have every right to protect their business model. it makes no sense to me to force a company to change the foundation of their business, and i dont wanna hear about “minor cutting” into their profits, the ROI is not something that should be adjusted by a 3rd party after consenting entities made a contract, and one side decides that it no longer wishes to honor it. im not in favor of forbidding the things you listed, apple is not without sin, and they wouldnt suffer much with the legislation being changed, but i believe that the scale and trade off of the consequences should not be a factor in deciding whether we stick to a principal of honoring legally binding contracts, even if it’s EULA that might seem unfair. those issues mustn’t be adressed post factum and uncoerced consumers should not be coddled.
  - syshum 8y ago
    My position in somewhere in the middle, some of the Right to repair laws go a little too far for me, however what I do 100% oppose is Apple being able to use copyright, trademark, and import laws to block people from disseminating repair information and parts that were re manufactured, repaired, or even reverse engineered. I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones. It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best. On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court. So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.

syshum 8y ago

See I believe Apple makes down right unethical decisions as well, like when they sue refreshers and repair shops... When they threaten to sue Youtubers who are educating people on how to repair their devices When they lobby aka payoff governments to prevent right to repair laws When they refuse to release tools and information that allow owners access to their hardware When they refuse to acknowledge hardware design flaws or stand behind their products... I could go on but the point is the idea that Facebook makes unethical decisions but Apple does not depends on what one considered ethical. Walled gardens to me are unethical so i do not buy products in walled gardens. Like wise I do not accept having my data sold as a commodity so I never joined facebook. They likely have a shadow profile on me, which I do find unethical, but most people are complaining about them selling data they themselves gave to facebook in exchange for a free service, I do not find that to be unethical. People that created an account with Facebook, for free, should have suspected this.

another-one-off 8y ago
In semi-rare cases, majorities organise against minorities. If that happens and the majority gets access to the data stored in something like Facebook's databases, it will be catastrophic. We can't say what minority it will be either. Rich people? Gypsies? Foreigners? Farmers? Poor people? They've all been persecuted groups at some point or another in some country. This isn't comparable to something like not being able to repair my phone, requiring me to buy a new phone.
- syshum 8y ago
  ohh please, that is hyperbolic to the extreme. The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, enough that their life would be threatened (as you imply) simply because someone gained access to their facebook profile. Me not having access to information on my device impacts me today, in reality. Your statement is a far fetched unrealistic projection of a dystopian world that I have no reason to entertain outside of fictional novel
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, People don’t have to specifically share the information with Facebook. You can infer a lot about people based on thier friends graph, thier likes, and FB tracks you across the web. You can tell which income percentile people most likely fall in just by the movies they said they liked (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey-poupon-and-the-cultural-divide https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey...).
davidrm 8y ago
i applaude you to sticking to your principles and voting with your dollar, however i do not share your sentiment about walled gardens. and when it comes to ethics, same argument can be made for apple with regarda to users controlling their hardware. (if) you are informed about the limitations of said hardware and general terms under which you bought it, then they have every right to protect their business model. it makes no sense to me to force a company to change the foundation of their business, and i dont wanna hear about “minor cutting” into their profits, the ROI is not something that should be adjusted by a 3rd party after consenting entities made a contract, and one side decides that it no longer wishes to honor it. im not in favor of forbidding the things you listed, apple is not without sin, and they wouldnt suffer much with the legislation being changed, but i believe that the scale and trade off of the consequences should not be a factor in deciding whether we stick to a principal of honoring legally binding contracts, even if it’s EULA that might seem unfair. those issues mustn’t be adressed post factum and uncoerced consumers should not be coddled.
- syshum 8y ago
  My position in somewhere in the middle, some of the Right to repair laws go a little too far for me, however what I do 100% oppose is Apple being able to use copyright, trademark, and import laws to block people from disseminating repair information and parts that were re manufactured, repaired, or even reverse engineered. I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones. It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best. On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court. So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.