3 ms·

> Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience Private entities shouldn't

> Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim. You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying. > Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? The downvotes is because what you suggest is wholly antithetical to every "open" movement in history. You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny. > I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place Again with this whole thing. You don't get to enact whatever policies you want because you think it would be nice. People have rights.

echelon 6y ago
> Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim. It's not a whim. They're being investigated by the EU and US Congress for being monopolies and suffocating smaller players. They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own. Don't trust me? Ask DHH. > You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying. The government can absolutely tell them what to do. Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple. Apple exists because of antitrust and the DOJ. > You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny. I'm glad the tyrannical government put the FDA in place. And the FAA. Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted? > People have rights. Companies aren't people. Despite Citizen's United.
- xvector 6y ago
  > It's not a whim Saying stuff like "Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla" is absolutely a whim. This would be an absurd government overreach. > They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own. You can absolutely succeed today without Apple. Apple is a minority player in the mobile device segment. Perhaps Apple is more profitable for developers. But they are not a monopoly in this space yet and do not warrant anti-trust. > Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple. Microsoft, on the other hand, was a monopoly (and still is, in many ways). > Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted? Can you imagine what will happen if we keep giving the government more and more power to do what they want? See: Australia's government forcing encryption backdoors into every service. Giving the government more and more power over companies that don't yet even constitute a monopoly is a recipe for disaster. > Companies aren't people. And yet companies are property, private entities, etc. Just because companies aren't people doesn't mean they are toys for the government to manipulate and control in any way they want under the guise of "antitrust regulation."

echelon 6y ago

> Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim. It's not a whim. They're being investigated by the EU and US Congress for being monopolies and suffocating smaller players. They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own. Don't trust me? Ask DHH. > You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying. The government can absolutely tell them what to do. Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple. Apple exists because of antitrust and the DOJ. > You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny. I'm glad the tyrannical government put the FDA in place. And the FAA. Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted? > People have rights. Companies aren't people. Despite Citizen's United.

xvector 6y ago
> It's not a whim Saying stuff like "Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla" is absolutely a whim. This would be an absurd government overreach. > They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own. You can absolutely succeed today without Apple. Apple is a minority player in the mobile device segment. Perhaps Apple is more profitable for developers. But they are not a monopoly in this space yet and do not warrant anti-trust. > Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple. Microsoft, on the other hand, was a monopoly (and still is, in many ways). > Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted? Can you imagine what will happen if we keep giving the government more and more power to do what they want? See: Australia's government forcing encryption backdoors into every service. Giving the government more and more power over companies that don't yet even constitute a monopoly is a recipe for disaster. > Companies aren't people. And yet companies are property, private entities, etc. Just because companies aren't people doesn't mean they are toys for the government to manipulate and control in any way they want under the guise of "antitrust regulation."