3 ms·
Your argument is that majority consensus overrides individual freedoms and that is preposterous.
by soulofmischief 6y ago
Your argument is that majority consensus overrides individual freedoms and that is preposterous.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoThat seems like a reductive interpretation. Can you explain which individual's freedoms are being overridden? And why is the argument preposterous?
- soulofmischief 6y agoI, the individual, cannot decide what content is allowed on my own Apple device which costs more than half a thousand dollars. Yet the collective can decide at my expense: Netflix gets a free pass via the argument that Netflix's movies are somehow more important than the content I wish to experience. It's great to see collective bargaining in action, for sure. I don't blame the people, and I don't blame Netflix. I blame Apple.
- xnyan 6y agoI think you’re kind of conflating what I believe is the ideal versus what I perceive to be reality. We are one of billions of people. The fundamental nature of existence is that our sum ability to affect the world around is generally quite small in comparison to the sum of the consequences of others as a whole. More people use Netflix, ergo Netflix has more leverage in negotiations with Apple. I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial conclusion?
- soulofmischief 6y agoThe controversy is that this is an artificial phenomenon brought upon by Apple's blatant disregard of inalienable digital rights by refusing to allow a user to do as they please with their mobile personal computing platform. There should be no leverage, and the fact that Netflix uses this privilege without taking a stand for others left behind is also controversial.
- pessimizer 6y agoIt's not an argument, it's an observation, and it's something we have to deal with.
- soulofmischief 6y agoI deal with it by not owning Apple products and online activism against their increasingly anti-consumer policies. How do you deal with it?