4 ms·

You mean like those evil resurrecting revolutionists in myanmar, hongkong and russia?

by singularity2001 6y ago

Robotbeat 6y ago
You’re making my point. The government isn’t going to protect speech more than private companies. Be careful for what you wish for on asking the government to step in.
- skohan 6y ago
  The government has legal limits with which it cannot infringe on speech. That's not to say it always works perfectly, but at least if the government prevents my speech, I have recourse to challenge it in the court system on constitutional grounds. If Google or Apple does it, I have zero recourse, and the limits of the speech on their platforms are decided entirely unilaterally.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Which is why sideloading should be protected. The government restricting the freedom of companies to moderate pretty terrible content is not great. What we should have is sideloading protected technically and legally. That also prevents Google and Apple from just collecting monopoly rents from their App Stores with no alternative. App stores and the ability of companies to pick and choose the apps that are allowed on them is a legitimate thing. What’s not legitimate is being stuck with ONLY being able to use the company’s App Store on the device you own. Government sticking their nose in there is likely to have results that are not what you want. The freedom-maximizing option is not to have government-moderated app stores (shudder). It’s to have the freedom to shop at different stores. The App Store model itself (where sideloading is prohibited and technically impossible) is a single point of failure, and having the government run it is not going to make things more free. I mean for goodness sake, you can’t even swear on FCC’s airwaves, and you’re telling me THAT’S the model you want in App Stores?
    - skohan 6y ago
      Nobody is talking about having the government run app stores. The argument is about regulating app stores to limit the power of the duopoly from having sole discretion over what is and isn't allowed on their store. Mandating side-loading would be an example of one such regulation.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I would rather see the government stay out of regulating software distribution. Once it gets involved, those regulations will be written by lobbyists and will make it harder for new platforms to arise. What I’d prefer is mandating that hardware be able to run alternative OSs. If iPhones and Android devices could have a free OS installed, all of these problems would be taken care of.
        skohan 6y ago
        You do realize that mandating side-loading, and alternate OS support would come in the form of government regulation right?
        zepto 6y ago
        For the record, I do not support mandating sideloading. I support the right to install an alternate OS on hardware you own. Just to clarify your point, since you have written it in an ambiguous way: Are you asking me whether I realize that the things I support would also require government regulation?
        thayne 6y ago
        You have the right to install an alternate OS on your phone now. It's just difficult to do, may result in bricking your device or at least crippling functionality, and even if all goes well, the software ecosystems for the existing alternate OSes is pretty small. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a viable phone OS, but as far as I can tell none of the existing options are ready to be used as a daily driver yet.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Google or Apple have no power whatsoever to prevent your speech.
    - skohan 6y ago
      They have all the power in the world to control who has access in to my speech. Right now where I live it's illegal to congregate in person. Whoever controls my online communication effectively controls my speech right now.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I wasn’t aware they were blacklisting websites. Do you live in China or some other jurisdiction where the web is filtered?

You mean like those evil resurrecting revolutionists in myanmar, hongkong and russia?

You’re making my point. The government isn’t going to protect speech more than private companies. Be careful for what you wish for on asking the government to step in.

skohan 6y ago
The government has legal limits with which it cannot infringe on speech. That's not to say it always works perfectly, but at least if the government prevents my speech, I have recourse to challenge it in the court system on constitutional grounds. If Google or Apple does it, I have zero recourse, and the limits of the speech on their platforms are decided entirely unilaterally.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Which is why sideloading should be protected. The government restricting the freedom of companies to moderate pretty terrible content is not great. What we should have is sideloading protected technically and legally. That also prevents Google and Apple from just collecting monopoly rents from their App Stores with no alternative. App stores and the ability of companies to pick and choose the apps that are allowed on them is a legitimate thing. What’s not legitimate is being stuck with ONLY being able to use the company’s App Store on the device you own. Government sticking their nose in there is likely to have results that are not what you want. The freedom-maximizing option is not to have government-moderated app stores (shudder). It’s to have the freedom to shop at different stores. The App Store model itself (where sideloading is prohibited and technically impossible) is a single point of failure, and having the government run it is not going to make things more free. I mean for goodness sake, you can’t even swear on FCC’s airwaves, and you’re telling me THAT’S the model you want in App Stores?
  - skohan 6y ago
    Nobody is talking about having the government run app stores. The argument is about regulating app stores to limit the power of the duopoly from having sole discretion over what is and isn't allowed on their store. Mandating side-loading would be an example of one such regulation.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I would rather see the government stay out of regulating software distribution. Once it gets involved, those regulations will be written by lobbyists and will make it harder for new platforms to arise. What I’d prefer is mandating that hardware be able to run alternative OSs. If iPhones and Android devices could have a free OS installed, all of these problems would be taken care of.
      - skohan 6y ago
        You do realize that mandating side-loading, and alternate OS support would come in the form of government regulation right?
        zepto 6y ago
        For the record, I do not support mandating sideloading. I support the right to install an alternate OS on hardware you own. Just to clarify your point, since you have written it in an ambiguous way: Are you asking me whether I realize that the things I support would also require government regulation?
        thayne 6y ago
        You have the right to install an alternate OS on your phone now. It's just difficult to do, may result in bricking your device or at least crippling functionality, and even if all goes well, the software ecosystems for the existing alternate OSes is pretty small. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a viable phone OS, but as far as I can tell none of the existing options are ready to be used as a daily driver yet.
- zepto 6y ago
  Google or Apple have no power whatsoever to prevent your speech.
  - skohan 6y ago
    They have all the power in the world to control who has access in to my speech. Right now where I live it's illegal to congregate in person. Whoever controls my online communication effectively controls my speech right now.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I wasn’t aware they were blacklisting websites. Do you live in China or some other jurisdiction where the web is filtered?