3 ms·
That's a well-reasoned response which I can appreciate. But honestly, read my original post to which you replied. I said I shared the parent's disgust, but I do
by bonestormii_ 6y ago
That's a well-reasoned response which I can appreciate. But honestly, read my original post to which you replied. I said I shared the parent's disgust, but I don't think I'm really reveling in outrage or speaking in such extreme terms as you characterize.
I'll quote it...
> "There are certainly shades of gray, but if I can speak on behalf of the post you are responding to, it seems their argument would be that it is a net negative, and that the "Good PR humanity" is relatively shallow in the end. Consider a $100,000,000 education fund for app developers. Certainly, app development can be a gateway for some people, but once they develop apps, where do they go if not a market place that Apple tightly controls? They are a machine funding the creation of new cogs in this scenario.If your overlords buy you an opulent dinner and provide you with a warm bed, it doesn't mean you are free.Freedom can be a vague and high-minded ideal that obviously needs to be balanced with communal concerns, but I agree with the parent poster's overall disgust. It feels that a company like Apple is so big that they are beyond any societal control or regulation, and that is unacceptable. To hear their minions rush to their defense as if their interests are somehow aligned (they're not) is too much to handle sometimes. It's tiring."
Honestly, I use so much language to balance and mitigate my argument that it's overly verbose.
> "There are shades of gray", "relatively shallow", "Certainly, app development can be a gateway for some people...", Freedom can be high-minded and needs to be balanced,".
Is it possible to make this point passively enough to satisfy your requirements?
I'll also admit that the parent comment was a bit more extreme in it's tone. And I'll admit there are many injustices in the world that go beyond tech. But I think the underlying issue of acquiring and maintaining freedom of all kinds is valid.
It's like saying, "With racial inequality being what it is, how can you spend your time belaboring a point about campaign finance reform?" The answer is simple: Because one form of freedom (in this case, governmental representation) facilitates those adjacent freedoms (racial equality). The importance of one doesn't invalidate the importance of the other.
I'm like, not that outraged. But I am like, casually disgusted by people who seem to have allowed huge corporations to become so apart of themselves that they lose the ability to see some obvious flaws.
I love my iPhone. Apple is far from the worst of it. But there are some very disturbing trends in tech and the world that warrant our skepticism and yes, our disgust. That it is treated as normal is part of the problem.
- WoodenChair 6y ago> Apple is far from the worst of it. But there are some very disturbing trends in tech and the world that warrant our skepticism Well we can agree on that. I am basically speaking against the reductive argument “big corporation = bad.“ Apple does good things and Apple does bad things. On balance I think they do more good than bad. We can have a debate about that. But we can’t debate if the opposition just thinks big corporation = bad and no freedom. I chose Apple because that is the company that started this discussion.
- alexashka 6y ago> Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols to ensure consumers get hardware-agnostic, operating system-agnostic, service-provider agnostic, company-agnostic tools and services, which is what everyone would agree we want, except the sociopaths who value profit over humanity and run these corporations. Did you read this and the only conclusion you came away with, is big corporation = bad? Feel free to address what's actually been said, rather presenting a straw man. -- Let me clarify why big corporation = bad is a straw man because I suspect some uneducated people may take your position seriously. Big corporation = bad is in fact a truism, if the government that's supposed to regulate corporations, is not doing their job. This is political science 101. There are people far more educated and likely smarter than you and I who don't consider USA a functioning democracy. Noam Chomsky considers USA a plutocracy. Have you studied this matter and have rebuttals to numerous arguments that he has presented to support his case?
- WoodenChair 6y ago> Let me clarify why big corporation = bad is a straw man because I'm suspect some uneducated people may take your position seriously. > There are people far more educated and likely smarter than you and I who don't consider USA a functioning democracy. You may have some good points, but your level of vitriol and overall tone really detracts from them. From the beginning where I pointed out your hyperbole, to your most recent comment where you're effectively calling people dumb and uneducated. If I need political science 101, then you need debate 101.