6 ms·

Why is hacker news full to the brim with this exact comment? This is a flawed worldview. Private companies cannot do whatever they want. When they are as big an

Why is hacker news full to the brim with this exact comment? This is a flawed worldview. Private companies cannot do whatever they want. When they are as big and their reach is as far as Apple's they have a further responsibility to society. What that is exactly can be decided in court, but the limit to their power isn't "whatever they want".

zepto 6y ago
I’d like to see Facebook’s ‘responsibility to society’ examined first.
- davzie 6y ago
  I was being contrarian hoping that someone posted the gold that was the person you replied to. The irony in that comment is incredible!
  - ziftface 6y ago
    I aim to please. Now tell me: what about my comment is wrong?
    - username90 6y ago
      We can examine both at the same time. You don't have to defend Apples practices just because Facebook is worse.
      - ziftface 6y ago
        I completely agree with this and didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Well established legal principles - ones old enough to be in Latin. "Nullum crimen sine lege" or "no punishment without law". Despite prevalent feelings of how it should be there needs to be an actual law broken to say they can't do that. Being a jerk isn't a crime. Anything isn't literally correct - if Apple decided and openly "we don't serve Jews" they would rightfully get in big legal trouble from several fronts from Civil Rights to shareholder lawsuits angry about the needless illegal mess they just made. But if there is no law it really is against them. Responsibility to society is a dangerously vague term and not backed by force of law for reason. Laws may fall under that as a label such as legally defined minimum of taxes but so do any number of potentially mutually exclusive opinions. I have yet to see a coherent proposal for defining a remotely popular new law to restrict undesired behaviors - let alone one that would be constitutional as well.

zepto 6y ago

I’d like to see Facebook’s ‘responsibility to society’ examined first.

davzie 6y ago
I was being contrarian hoping that someone posted the gold that was the person you replied to. The irony in that comment is incredible!
- ziftface 6y ago
  I aim to please. Now tell me: what about my comment is wrong?
  - username90 6y ago
    We can examine both at the same time. You don't have to defend Apples practices just because Facebook is worse.
    - ziftface 6y ago
      I completely agree with this and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Well established legal principles - ones old enough to be in Latin. "Nullum crimen sine lege" or "no punishment without law". Despite prevalent feelings of how it should be there needs to be an actual law broken to say they can't do that. Being a jerk isn't a crime. Anything isn't literally correct - if Apple decided and openly "we don't serve Jews" they would rightfully get in big legal trouble from several fronts from Civil Rights to shareholder lawsuits angry about the needless illegal mess they just made. But if there is no law it really is against them. Responsibility to society is a dangerously vague term and not backed by force of law for reason. Laws may fall under that as a label such as legally defined minimum of taxes but so do any number of potentially mutually exclusive opinions. I have yet to see a coherent proposal for defining a remotely popular new law to restrict undesired behaviors - let alone one that would be constitutional as well.