4 ms·
> Consumers should come first before massive corporations And yet corporations don’t exist to do your particular bidding and make your desires real. Unless a c
by xvector 6y ago
> Consumers should come first before massive corporations
And yet corporations don’t exist to do your particular bidding and make your desires real. Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make.
Apple could, for all intents and purposes, sell useless slabs of aluminum. Your demands to have the government coerce them into creating open APIs would be just as outrageous in this scenario.
Finally, giving the government this much power is shortsighted at best. Has the Trump administration not shown you the extremes the government can go to? The TikTok debacle after Trump’s Tulsa rally was ruined by it, calls to repeal Section 230, etc.
The government is not your friend and it never will be. There will always come a time when it will abuse its powers to the greatest extent possible. Unless corporations are actively and illegally harming consumers, I don’t see why your proposal is necessary.
Consider supporting companies that further your ideals with your own wallet rather than telling other companies what to do.
- zepto 6y agoSupport such companies or actually work on projects that further them. The idea that the government is going to create an open software utopia is hard to understand.
- hnick 6y ago> Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make. OK so we make it illegal. Governments are good at that.
- zepto 6y agoMake what illegal?
- hnick 6y agoIn this case, possibly nothing, since antitrust already exists. But I'm not qualified to decide. It is probably best to wait and see how this and the Apple/Epic case play out to see if changes are required. I'm just a bit sick of the argument "It's OK if it is legal" when laws exist to serve us and can be changed. Discussion is the first step. My comment was a response to that. Mandating right to repair and open platforms and formats (such as the circuit diagrams we used to get within our instruction manuals) would be one possibility.
- zepto 6y agoYou’d have to make that mandate global, otherwise you’d see countries that do permit trade secrets simply dominate the computing landscape. This is not a realistic option.
- hnick 6y agoI don't think it needs to be fully global, just a significant market. EU's mandate on USB-C chargers is one example where you lose a lot by opting out.
- zepto 6y agoHow is a standardized charging socket in any way comparable to banning trade secrets? This doesn’t make sense to me.
- hnick 6y agoIt's an example of a law in one country changing what a company does in another country to access the market, without a global mandate. I read that as the main point, not trade secrets. In your example, a company with trade secrets may want to (and be allowed to) keep circuit diagrams or charger designs secret in country A, but have to open them up to be allowed to sell in country B. It becomes a choice that carries a cost without a global mandate.
- travisoneill1 6y agoThe war on drugs has entered the chat
- manigandham 6y ago> "Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make" Exactly, legislation and legality is how we tell them what to do. > Your demands to have the government coerce them into creating open APIs would be just as outrageous in this scenario. I didn't demand govt-forced open APIs? Where did you come up with that? However right-to-repair and other freedoms and ownership over the hardware you purchase, especially when it's so critical to your life and centrally controlled, is worthwhile to pursue. > "giving the government this much power is shortsighted at best" Either the corporation or the government has the power. The challenge is finding the right balance, because neither should have complete authority.
- xvector 6y ago> Exactly, legislation and legality is how well tell them what to do. What legislation do you propose? > I didn't demand govt-forced open APIs? Where did you come up with that? OP’s comment, which you seem to be arguing in favor of. Apologies if I misinterpreted. > Either the corporation or the government has the power. Obviously. So long as there are anti-monopolistic practices in place, you can choose the corporation you want to interface with easily. Nothing is stopping OP from buying an Android phone, PinePhone, or Purism Librem 5. Governments are not something you can choose, not really, and giving them wholesale control of how corporations can create tech products is granting them an absurd level of power, especially when viable alternatives already exist on the free market.
- manigandham 6y agoRight-to-repair and freedom to install and operate apps without going through a single centrally-controlled app store. Here's a question: Should the wireless networks that your phone requires to function follow net neutrality? Why or why not?
- paulryanrogers 6y agoApple is approaching a monopsony over phone profits. Given time it could hollow out the competition until there is no practical alternative.