3 ms·

> I think companies are also free to tell people they aren't welcome if they're going to use that extension. Or a particular browser. Or a specific operating s

> I think companies are also free to tell people they aren't welcome if they're going to use that extension. Or a particular browser. Or a specific operating system. Or the wrong brand of device. You can probably see where I'm going with that, but in case it's not perfectly clear, I'm trying to say that a company might want to dictate a lot more than just what extension you're using in a browser. Not everyone is going to agree that they are right to do that. Bear in mind that there's more to consider here than the legality of what they're doing. The openness of the Internet, the interoperability of different operating systems and devices over a particular somewhat-standardized protocol -- these aspects aren't regulated by a law, but they're still important. I'm one of those people who remember the Browser Wars and I don't remember them fondly. Of course, it's not just about technical aspects, either. There's the whole grey area of whether it's okay for LinkedIn to metaphorically rifle through our proverbial pockets, looking for stuff they don't like and don't want to admit on their virtual premises. So no, I wouldn't agree that things are as clear cut as you present them.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
There is a balance. A theater probably shouldn't discriminate based on the shoes you wear, but may not offer a rewards app for FirefoxOS. Or a restaurant may not accept customers without shirts. Of course where to draw the lines is important and up for debate
- zcid 7y ago
  Not providing an app for FirefoxOS is not the same as refusing entrance because your phone runs FirefoxOS. The LinkedIn case seems to be closer to the latter.
sfotm 7y ago
Slippery slope. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
marcosdumay 7y ago
As long as those companies do not have any monopoly[1] and do not offer any public service, why not? They are not free to snoop into information that isn't standard or reasonable. But if they aren't running spyware on my computer[2], they can decide whatever they want with the information my browser send to them. [1] Do they? I'm not sure wether Linked-in has a monopoly as middleman in job searchers. [2] How does invasive Javascript stands here? I'm inclined to consider that it's my browser's job to protect me, not theirs. But if they do some very unreasonable things, the blame is on them again.

paulryanrogers 7y ago

There is a balance. A theater probably shouldn't discriminate based on the shoes you wear, but may not offer a rewards app for FirefoxOS. Or a restaurant may not accept customers without shirts. Of course where to draw the lines is important and up for debate

zcid 7y ago
Not providing an app for FirefoxOS is not the same as refusing entrance because your phone runs FirefoxOS. The LinkedIn case seems to be closer to the latter.

sfotm 7y ago

Slippery slope. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

marcosdumay 7y ago

As long as those companies do not have any monopoly[1] and do not offer any public service, why not? They are not free to snoop into information that isn't standard or reasonable. But if they aren't running spyware on my computer[2], they can decide whatever they want with the information my browser send to them. [1] Do they? I'm not sure wether Linked-in has a monopoly as middleman in job searchers. [2] How does invasive Javascript stands here? I'm inclined to consider that it's my browser's job to protect me, not theirs. But if they do some very unreasonable things, the blame is on them again.