3 ms·

How do you know this was his clear intention? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what a "well-meaning, well-intended app" is and restricting certa

by rooshdi 16y ago

How do you know this was his clear intention? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what a "well-meaning, well-intended app" is and restricting certain apps based on what one considers "well-meaning" is a very myopic and inconsiderate view to have.

siglesias 16y ago
This argument doesn't fly because you are making "well-meaning" out to be more ambiguous and subject to disagreement than it actually is. All of us exercise judgment every day about well-meaningness when we excuse people for bumping into us, saying something they didn't intend, misunderstanding an unfamiliar rule or custom. It's what we do without thinking twice. You though, like many, many, others, are getting caught up in the subjective nature of exercising judgment and would like to see a list of necessary and sufficient conditions that is followed logically and to a t, something like a mathematics that has right and wrong and no in between. Unfortunately these things don't exist. If you look at how government and academia played out we have a judiciary systems and admissions systems that, yeah, have a few well-meaning people exercising judgment about slew of important topics that affect lots of people. It's either that or anarchy. There is subjectivity about a lot if concepts, laws, and institutions we don't have a choice but to share. The presence of subjectivity is not grounds for eliminating that institution.
- rooshdi 16y ago
  I am not saying Apple should eliminate its curating process altogether, but rather that it shouldn't dictate the existence of an application solely based on competitive conflicts it has with the information within it. It is clearly an action of insecurity and selfishness on Apple's part. I could also argue that constraining and dictating information based on one's views can also lead to anarchy.

by rooshdi 16y ago

siglesias 16y ago

This argument doesn't fly because you are making "well-meaning" out to be more ambiguous and subject to disagreement than it actually is. All of us exercise judgment every day about well-meaningness when we excuse people for bumping into us, saying something they didn't intend, misunderstanding an unfamiliar rule or custom. It's what we do without thinking twice. You though, like many, many, others, are getting caught up in the subjective nature of exercising judgment and would like to see a list of necessary and sufficient conditions that is followed logically and to a t, something like a mathematics that has right and wrong and no in between. Unfortunately these things don't exist. If you look at how government and academia played out we have a judiciary systems and admissions systems that, yeah, have a few well-meaning people exercising judgment about slew of important topics that affect lots of people. It's either that or anarchy. There is subjectivity about a lot if concepts, laws, and institutions we don't have a choice but to share. The presence of subjectivity is not grounds for eliminating that institution.

rooshdi 16y ago
I am not saying Apple should eliminate its curating process altogether, but rather that it shouldn't dictate the existence of an application solely based on competitive conflicts it has with the information within it. It is clearly an action of insecurity and selfishness on Apple's part. I could also argue that constraining and dictating information based on one's views can also lead to anarchy.