4 ms·

Never let yourself become loyal to a company. Companies are motivated by profit. The only "support" you should ever give a company is payment in exchange for

Never let yourself become loyal to a company. Companies are motivated by profit. The only "support" you should ever give a company is payment in exchange for a product or service. Bad companies support plenty of good causes. Support those causes, but don't confuse that with support for the company itself. I agree with Google about link taxes being bad, but I do not support Google itself. I agree with Apple about Facebook's privacy violations being bad, but I do not support Apple itself. I agree with Epic about Apple's restrictions regarding what users can do with their devices being bad, but I do not support Epic itself. Companies are not heroes.

zepto 6y ago
It’s not that simple - if you ‘agree’ with these companies, then you are agreeing with their self-serving framing, and supporting them. You might think there are problems with each company (I certainly do), but that doesn’t mean I need to agree with them in any way.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Just because it's self serving doesn't mean it's wrong. They can reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Possibly, but extraordinarily unlikely. They are working backwards to conclusions that benefit them in particular, and framing the problem in those terms. That is of course the right conclusion for them. The chances are that those are the right conclusions for everyone else, are next to zero, since they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion. Also if their reasons are wrong, then their conclusion will be framed wrongly. We do sometimes say someone did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but by definition we never say this while still ourselves buying into the logic they used to get there.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      > they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion. No they don't. They have a bias for reaching conclusions which benefit them. Full stop. Those conclusions may coincidentally benefit others, even if that was not part of their motivation. What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic?
      - zepto 6y ago
        > What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic? Bizarre - I’m not sure what these suggestions have to do with me. Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. Nothing they are proposing is about that. All they are proposing is that they should be able to get a cut. If Epic gets to run an App Store or payment gateway, Apple’s platform will still limit what users can do with their devices, so we can see that they don’t care about that. Personally, I am happy for Apple’s customers to choose a closed platform if they like. But, I am not happy that we have no open alternative. Google promised us one, but reneged on that promise. Remember ‘open always wins’? I don’t think it’s Apple’s responsibility to provide people with an open platform, nor do I think we should force our views on people who want a curated platform. I think it’s up to the rest of us to build an open platform, if we want one. ‘The rest of us’ would include Epic, if they had an interest in user freedom.
        CivBase 6y ago
        > Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. I never said they do. They want users to be able to install iOS apps on from third party sources. Their motivation is that they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees. Our causes are aligned even though their intentions are entirely self-serving. They reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

zepto 6y ago

It’s not that simple - if you ‘agree’ with these companies, then you are agreeing with their self-serving framing, and supporting them. You might think there are problems with each company (I certainly do), but that doesn’t mean I need to agree with them in any way.

im3w1l 6y ago
Just because it's self serving doesn't mean it's wrong. They can reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
- zepto 6y ago
  Possibly, but extraordinarily unlikely. They are working backwards to conclusions that benefit them in particular, and framing the problem in those terms. That is of course the right conclusion for them. The chances are that those are the right conclusions for everyone else, are next to zero, since they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion. Also if their reasons are wrong, then their conclusion will be framed wrongly. We do sometimes say someone did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but by definition we never say this while still ourselves buying into the logic they used to get there.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    > they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion. No they don't. They have a bias for reaching conclusions which benefit them. Full stop. Those conclusions may coincidentally benefit others, even if that was not part of their motivation. What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic?
    - zepto 6y ago
      > What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic? Bizarre - I’m not sure what these suggestions have to do with me. Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. Nothing they are proposing is about that. All they are proposing is that they should be able to get a cut. If Epic gets to run an App Store or payment gateway, Apple’s platform will still limit what users can do with their devices, so we can see that they don’t care about that. Personally, I am happy for Apple’s customers to choose a closed platform if they like. But, I am not happy that we have no open alternative. Google promised us one, but reneged on that promise. Remember ‘open always wins’? I don’t think it’s Apple’s responsibility to provide people with an open platform, nor do I think we should force our views on people who want a curated platform. I think it’s up to the rest of us to build an open platform, if we want one. ‘The rest of us’ would include Epic, if they had an interest in user freedom.
      - CivBase 6y ago
        > Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. I never said they do. They want users to be able to install iOS apps on from third party sources. Their motivation is that they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees. Our causes are aligned even though their intentions are entirely self-serving. They reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.