3 ms·

As I have said in other, similar discussions, there are a lot of different (forms of) freedoms. There is no absolute freedom and deciding what form of freedom t

As I have said in other, similar discussions, there are a lot of different (forms of) freedoms. There is no absolute freedom and deciding what form of freedom to rank higher than another is a value judgement. Collective freedoms intrude on individual freedoms (and vice versa). So if a society decides, that (absolut) free speech is the most important value, it also says, that everybody must endure everything another person does say about them. Taken to the extrem every form of lie, verbal abuse, and so on is ok. So you can either have (absolut) free speech. Or you can have some forms of things that are not allowed to say (at least not without potentially facing consequences). As these are value calls/judgments this will always be a topic of debate. And that is good. Because in the end every generation, every society and every group needs to define what is the major consensus. What is allowed and what is not. What are the value hierarchies. In the USA, for example, it is perfectly legal to deny the Holocaust. In Germany, this is a punishable offense. If Apple, as a private company, now determines what is permissible speech within their ecosystem and what no longer falls under free speech, then that is their right. Just as it is then the customers' right to no longer buy the company's products. The question could be, at what point is a company perhaps more than a purely private company and more arrived at the status of infrastructure. And should different rules then apply? Is it permissible to dictate to Apple, for example, that they are not allowed to make such deletions. Should we (be allowed to) intervene so far in private-sector freedom as a company? And should the USA then be allowed to intervene differently than China, for example?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
A much simpler and elegant solution compared to mandating changes for Apple's app store policies, is simply requiring them to allow users to install apps from other sources (e.g. directly from webpages, or from other app stores). You could do this on the basis that the real problem isn't that Apple has some particular policy for their store, but rather the problem is that their store is a monopoly within the iOS ecosystem. And the government has a history of intervening when it comes to monopolies (at least some of the time), so it matches precedent.
- sdoering 6y ago
  In principle, I agree. Of course, I prefer the freer model, where I can install whatever software I want on my computing device. I grew up with this possibility since I was 14 (first apple, later Linux and Windows). I'm still irritated by app stores today and I personally don't understand the appeal of a "walled garden". This leads to the following value question, which I will illustrate with an example: Should a company like Nestle be prevented from contracting with a municipality to pump and sell its spring water? Why would anyone want to regulate this? I am not forced to buy this water and support such business practices. No consumer is forced to do so. And if the people in such a community have democratically decided that short-term profit is worth more to them than the long-term supply of groundwater, no one should be able to prevent this community from selling their water either. And that's how I see Apple.Every company has the right to set the rules for their platform that they see fit. And every user has the right to go to the self-imposed prison that protects him from "evil software", pornography, fake news (and what else). Or not to enter this ecosystem. [edit typo]

TulliusCicero 6y ago

A much simpler and elegant solution compared to mandating changes for Apple's app store policies, is simply requiring them to allow users to install apps from other sources (e.g. directly from webpages, or from other app stores). You could do this on the basis that the real problem isn't that Apple has some particular policy for their store, but rather the problem is that their store is a monopoly within the iOS ecosystem. And the government has a history of intervening when it comes to monopolies (at least some of the time), so it matches precedent.

sdoering 6y ago
In principle, I agree. Of course, I prefer the freer model, where I can install whatever software I want on my computing device. I grew up with this possibility since I was 14 (first apple, later Linux and Windows). I'm still irritated by app stores today and I personally don't understand the appeal of a "walled garden". This leads to the following value question, which I will illustrate with an example: Should a company like Nestle be prevented from contracting with a municipality to pump and sell its spring water? Why would anyone want to regulate this? I am not forced to buy this water and support such business practices. No consumer is forced to do so. And if the people in such a community have democratically decided that short-term profit is worth more to them than the long-term supply of groundwater, no one should be able to prevent this community from selling their water either. And that's how I see Apple.Every company has the right to set the rules for their platform that they see fit. And every user has the right to go to the self-imposed prison that protects him from "evil software", pornography, fake news (and what else). Or not to enter this ecosystem. [edit typo]