7 ms·

The difference is that Apple is not a government. That means they are not an organization which can legally stop, detain, arrest, charge, prosecute, convict, i

by SllX 6y ago

The difference is that Apple is not a government. That means they are not an organization which can legally stop, detain, arrest, charge, prosecute, convict, imprison, and kill you.

username90 6y ago
EU have about much power to imprison you as Apple does, as in they can't unless they can convince the local police you have committed some crime. They lack power compared to US feds.
- SllX 6y ago
  They’re still a collaborative governmental entity with governments enforcing its laws, so they pass muster as far as being a “State” goes, unless you want to go into specifics about the various treaties and how this is really a treaty organization and blah. In the looks, walks and quacks like a duck, with all the other ducks around treating it like a duck, it’s a bloody government with all the powers that entails, even if enforcement is a matter left to the member nations that do have all of the powers I just outlined. I actually did write recently in a HN comment outlining the difference between the EU and Feds, but in terms of power, the EU is closer to the US Federal Government than to Apple because it still has laws. Apple is a private organization with a corporate charter, owned by shareholders, controlled by its Board of Directors and with the ability to engage in lawful business activity, with none of the powers that governments have. They don’t have jurisdiction, they have stores. They don’t make laws, they write policies. They don’t levy taxes, they trade. The fees of the App Store are a known quantity, and you can take them or leave them. So in that light, does it still make sense to try to control Apple like a government entity or treat them like some kind of pseudo-government or rhetorically refer to their business practices using language we use to describe governments? Why do we demand so much more accountability from governments including supranational intergovernmental treaty organizations controlled by governments than we do from private shareholder owned and controlled organizations? Honestly think about it.
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    > it’s a bloody government with all the powers that entails Still doesn’t have any physical police authority.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      Yet.
      - jevgeni 6y ago
        Yet internet commenters pretend that they do, to make flawed, emotional points.
        fogihujy 6y ago
        This is a bit off-topic, but personally, I believe it to be a matter of when rather than if. For now, the EU does have indirect ways of enforcing EU-wide legislation, as individual member countries will implement EU directives and enforce them. Thus, laws written in Brussels could result in people getting arrested, even if it ended up being a Dutch or Polish police officer doing the actual arresting. The EU does, however, tend to stick to things that result in economical sanctions and fines, rather than incarceration. Apple, on the other hand, has no such legislative powers.
        username90 6y ago
        As long as countries can leave the EU there is no way it will become as top down governed as US is. If the EU feds started to be as heavy handed as the US feds then the union would break apart, and since it is legal to leave in EU unlike US it wouldn't become a civil war.
    - SllX 6y ago
      It doesn’t have to because the national governments are charged with enforcing EU laws.
Tainnor 6y ago
> The difference is that Apple is not a government Yes, and this is a key difference between Europeans and (at least the libertarian/SV type of) Americans. We trust governments more than corporations because governments were elected by us. It's really a difference in culture.
- SllX 6y ago
  That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting one type of organization more than another. I think we (Americans) don’t trust either without cause, and there’s more corporations than governments so there’s more opportunities to find corporations, actually scratch that, businesses, big or small, that we trust. But by default, I think we trust both about as far as we can throw them and businesses we do trust, maybe only slightly so and in a largely transactional manner. The question is whether we are getting value for the money, not whether the businesses and owners are trustworthy.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    The difference is that in the US we don’t trust the government to the point where even though that’s the one we have more control over, we do not choose to use it against bad corporate behavior for fear that the government will do it wrong. The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to.
    - SllX 6y ago
      Governments are self-executing power vehicles. Ascribing intent onto them isn’t particularly useful when a government has a mechanism for rewriting its reason foe existence through law. That said: > The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to. What is the basis for your claims on their effectiveness?
      - Acinyx 6y ago
        I think he used "effective" as in: "they have the power to, they are able to/it fall in their domain", not as in "they did it perfectly without overhead"
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
The other difference is that a democratic government is accountable to voters while Apple is only accountable to its shareholders.
- SllX 6y ago
  The implications of my statement necessitates this difference.
mcv 6y ago
> "The difference is that Apple is not a government." That means they are not an organization that is accountable to the public. That means they are an organization that cares more about profit and market share, than about human/civil rights.
- SllX 6y ago
  You could say the same thing about your local coffee shop. What's the problem?
  - nisa 6y ago
    No problem - the local coffee shop is also subject to regulations and needs to pay tax, need to respect hard fought worker laws (at least in most countries) and needs to respect the law. Now there are some new regulations for bigger entities. What's the problem?
    - SllX 6y ago
      > Now there are some new regulations for bigger entities. What's the problem? "Size" of business is an arbitrary and meritless distinction.
      - bonoboTP 6y ago
        Size matters a lot. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432581
        SllX 6y ago
        Is the problem the license plates or the license plate readers? This is not a strong argument for the merits of “size” of business in the context of lawmaking. This demonstrates the privacy defects of what is a law enforcement tool intended for vehicle identification.
      - 6y ago

by SllX 6y ago

The difference is that Apple is not a government. That means they are not an organization which can legally stop, detain, arrest, charge, prosecute, convict, imprison, and kill you.

username90 6y ago

EU have about much power to imprison you as Apple does, as in they can't unless they can convince the local police you have committed some crime. They lack power compared to US feds.

SllX 6y ago
They’re still a collaborative governmental entity with governments enforcing its laws, so they pass muster as far as being a “State” goes, unless you want to go into specifics about the various treaties and how this is really a treaty organization and blah. In the looks, walks and quacks like a duck, with all the other ducks around treating it like a duck, it’s a bloody government with all the powers that entails, even if enforcement is a matter left to the member nations that do have all of the powers I just outlined. I actually did write recently in a HN comment outlining the difference between the EU and Feds, but in terms of power, the EU is closer to the US Federal Government than to Apple because it still has laws. Apple is a private organization with a corporate charter, owned by shareholders, controlled by its Board of Directors and with the ability to engage in lawful business activity, with none of the powers that governments have. They don’t have jurisdiction, they have stores. They don’t make laws, they write policies. They don’t levy taxes, they trade. The fees of the App Store are a known quantity, and you can take them or leave them. So in that light, does it still make sense to try to control Apple like a government entity or treat them like some kind of pseudo-government or rhetorically refer to their business practices using language we use to describe governments? Why do we demand so much more accountability from governments including supranational intergovernmental treaty organizations controlled by governments than we do from private shareholder owned and controlled organizations? Honestly think about it.
- jevgeni 6y ago
  > it’s a bloody government with all the powers that entails Still doesn’t have any physical police authority.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    Yet.
    - jevgeni 6y ago
      Yet internet commenters pretend that they do, to make flawed, emotional points.
      - fogihujy 6y ago
        This is a bit off-topic, but personally, I believe it to be a matter of when rather than if. For now, the EU does have indirect ways of enforcing EU-wide legislation, as individual member countries will implement EU directives and enforce them. Thus, laws written in Brussels could result in people getting arrested, even if it ended up being a Dutch or Polish police officer doing the actual arresting. The EU does, however, tend to stick to things that result in economical sanctions and fines, rather than incarceration. Apple, on the other hand, has no such legislative powers.
        username90 6y ago
        As long as countries can leave the EU there is no way it will become as top down governed as US is. If the EU feds started to be as heavy handed as the US feds then the union would break apart, and since it is legal to leave in EU unlike US it wouldn't become a civil war.
  - SllX 6y ago
    It doesn’t have to because the national governments are charged with enforcing EU laws.

Tainnor 6y ago

> The difference is that Apple is not a government Yes, and this is a key difference between Europeans and (at least the libertarian/SV type of) Americans. We trust governments more than corporations because governments were elected by us. It's really a difference in culture.

SllX 6y ago
That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting one type of organization more than another. I think we (Americans) don’t trust either without cause, and there’s more corporations than governments so there’s more opportunities to find corporations, actually scratch that, businesses, big or small, that we trust. But by default, I think we trust both about as far as we can throw them and businesses we do trust, maybe only slightly so and in a largely transactional manner. The question is whether we are getting value for the money, not whether the businesses and owners are trustworthy.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  The difference is that in the US we don’t trust the government to the point where even though that’s the one we have more control over, we do not choose to use it against bad corporate behavior for fear that the government will do it wrong. The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Governments are self-executing power vehicles. Ascribing intent onto them isn’t particularly useful when a government has a mechanism for rewriting its reason foe existence through law. That said: > The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to. What is the basis for your claims on their effectiveness?
    - Acinyx 6y ago
      I think he used "effective" as in: "they have the power to, they are able to/it fall in their domain", not as in "they did it perfectly without overhead"

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

The other difference is that a democratic government is accountable to voters while Apple is only accountable to its shareholders.

SllX 6y ago
The implications of my statement necessitates this difference.

mcv 6y ago

> "The difference is that Apple is not a government." That means they are not an organization that is accountable to the public. That means they are an organization that cares more about profit and market share, than about human/civil rights.

SllX 6y ago
You could say the same thing about your local coffee shop. What's the problem?
- nisa 6y ago
  No problem - the local coffee shop is also subject to regulations and needs to pay tax, need to respect hard fought worker laws (at least in most countries) and needs to respect the law. Now there are some new regulations for bigger entities. What's the problem?
  - SllX 6y ago
    > Now there are some new regulations for bigger entities. What's the problem? "Size" of business is an arbitrary and meritless distinction.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      Size matters a lot. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432581
      - SllX 6y ago
        Is the problem the license plates or the license plate readers? This is not a strong argument for the merits of “size” of business in the context of lawmaking. This demonstrates the privacy defects of what is a law enforcement tool intended for vehicle identification.
    - 6y ago