5 ms·

Given that (a) no smartphone exists that is a perfect fit for my ideal requirements and (b) having some smartphone is now almost essential to function normal

Given that (a) no smartphone exists that is a perfect fit for my ideal requirements and (b) having some smartphone is now almost essential to function normally within society I would say yes, I absolutely do want the government to intervene. Market competition is obviously not doing the job, and none of us individually is strong enough to force the issue with the suppliers. That is exactly the situation where regulatory intervention is appropriate to protect the little guy from the power of the big guy.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> I absolutely do want the government to intervene Well I don't know what to say apart from this is incredibly selfish. You can't find a product suited to your particular esoteric requirements so you want the government to force someone else to perform labour to build the product you want. Can you see how wacky that sounds when you write it out like that?
- Silhouette 6y ago
  By that argument, all consumer protection laws should be abolished. Clearly I don't agree with that position. I don't think it's selfish to argue that government should protect the little guy from being exploited by the big guy who has much greater power, for each of the numerous little guys affected by a situation. Indeed, that is arguably one of the most important functions of any government. I would have less of a problem with this if we were discussing some luxury item that people could easily do without. However, the reality is that many organisations -- including government entities at various scales in my country as well as other essential services -- now effectively require the use of certain technologies in order to function as a normal member of society. It is therefore reasonable to ensure that the technologies available are provided on an acceptable basis. If a supplier doesn't want to play by those rules, they're not forced to perform any labour for me or anyone else here. They're perfectly entitled to simply exit the market instead.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > However, the reality is that many organisations -- including government entities at various scales in my country as well as other essential services -- now effectively require the use of certain technologies in order to function as a normal member of society. But you can already access these Government services - the apps already work, right? You don't need a third-party-app-store to use them? So that isn't a reason to change anything. You want the iPhone to be changed so you can do other things with the iPhone, unrelated to these Government services.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      You keep quoting a partial comment and then trying to shift the discussion away from the fundamental point. The fundamental point is still that, for practical purposes, many people now have to have a smartphone. There are, for practical purposes, two types of smartphone available. If neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data -- then this implies a lack of effective competition in the marketplace. Government regulation is the solution to that problem. Arguing that people don't have to buy the product isn't helpful. Many people are effectively forced into buying one product or the other. Arguing that people don't have to buy the Apple product isn't helpful. Buying an Android one instead is worse in other respects.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > You keep quoting a partial comment and then trying to shift the discussion away from the fundamental point. When you try to give a concrete example I show how that concrete example doesn't make any sense to me. If the fundamental point doesn't translate to any concrete situations then it's a dud. > neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data But I don't think these are a reasonable conditions. And I don't think many people want them - I think the number is probably absolutely tiny. I think using legislation to force Apple to accomodate the unreasonable and abstract preferences of a tiny number of people from a group that isn't specially protected is morally unjust. But I won't keep arguing it further as I think we probably just have different morals.
scarface74 6y ago
Sure let the same idiots who put on the dog and pony show with tech CEOs design the SilhouettePhone just for you....
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  That's real snazzy name for a smartphone. When can I preorder it?

chrisseaton 6y ago

> I absolutely do want the government to intervene Well I don't know what to say apart from this is incredibly selfish. You can't find a product suited to your particular esoteric requirements so you want the government to force someone else to perform labour to build the product you want. Can you see how wacky that sounds when you write it out like that?

Silhouette 6y ago
By that argument, all consumer protection laws should be abolished. Clearly I don't agree with that position. I don't think it's selfish to argue that government should protect the little guy from being exploited by the big guy who has much greater power, for each of the numerous little guys affected by a situation. Indeed, that is arguably one of the most important functions of any government. I would have less of a problem with this if we were discussing some luxury item that people could easily do without. However, the reality is that many organisations -- including government entities at various scales in my country as well as other essential services -- now effectively require the use of certain technologies in order to function as a normal member of society. It is therefore reasonable to ensure that the technologies available are provided on an acceptable basis. If a supplier doesn't want to play by those rules, they're not forced to perform any labour for me or anyone else here. They're perfectly entitled to simply exit the market instead.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > However, the reality is that many organisations -- including government entities at various scales in my country as well as other essential services -- now effectively require the use of certain technologies in order to function as a normal member of society. But you can already access these Government services - the apps already work, right? You don't need a third-party-app-store to use them? So that isn't a reason to change anything. You want the iPhone to be changed so you can do other things with the iPhone, unrelated to these Government services.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    You keep quoting a partial comment and then trying to shift the discussion away from the fundamental point. The fundamental point is still that, for practical purposes, many people now have to have a smartphone. There are, for practical purposes, two types of smartphone available. If neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data -- then this implies a lack of effective competition in the marketplace. Government regulation is the solution to that problem. Arguing that people don't have to buy the product isn't helpful. Many people are effectively forced into buying one product or the other. Arguing that people don't have to buy the Apple product isn't helpful. Buying an Android one instead is worse in other respects.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > You keep quoting a partial comment and then trying to shift the discussion away from the fundamental point. When you try to give a concrete example I show how that concrete example doesn't make any sense to me. If the fundamental point doesn't translate to any concrete situations then it's a dud. > neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data But I don't think these are a reasonable conditions. And I don't think many people want them - I think the number is probably absolutely tiny. I think using legislation to force Apple to accomodate the unreasonable and abstract preferences of a tiny number of people from a group that isn't specially protected is morally unjust. But I won't keep arguing it further as I think we probably just have different morals.

scarface74 6y ago

Sure let the same idiots who put on the dog and pony show with tech CEOs design the SilhouettePhone just for you....

Apocryphon 6y ago
That's real snazzy name for a smartphone. When can I preorder it?