4 ms·

But justice system works equally for everyone, while this is private sector, where contracts rule. It is apple vs pear. Same to freedom of speech. Anyone can sa

But justice system works equally for everyone, while this is private sector, where contracts rule. It is apple vs pear. Same to freedom of speech. Anyone can say anything in public, but if someone post a thread in Google Groups, they can ban you for whatever reason, because the user agreed to their ToS first. Of course, DroidScript has the freedom to choose different ad provider altogether, but they didn't.

busymom0 5y ago
How does one ensure that the contract is even being abided with when such company refuses to even provide any info? Google, Amazon, VISA/Mastercard, Apple etc companies have basically become the railroads of 21st century and they need to be treated the same way the railroads got treated in the 19th century. https://theconversation.com/for-tech-giants-a-cautionary-tale-from-19th-century-railroads-on-the-limits-of-competition-91616 https://theconversation.com/for-tech-giants-a-cautionary-tal...
mytherin 5y ago
The reason government is treated differently from companies in that regard is because the government has a natural monopoly in many areas. You cannot choose an alternative government, you are forced to deal with the one there is. When companies hold monopoly status (which Google absolutely does), there is also no real, viable alternative to choose from. When publishing on Android, realistically you are forced to deal with Google. They are not any different from a government in that regard. The only difference between Google and the actual government is that (under the current set of laws) Google can get away with levels of abuse without recourse that the government cannot. > Of course, DroidScript has the freedom to choose different ad provider altogether, but they didn't. They could have chosen a different ad provider, but that is clearly not the problem. They could not have chosen a different publisher on Android without sacrificing >95% of their marketshare, and after being banned by Google from the play store it is game over for them.
- CrendKing 5y ago
  I agree with you. But legally speaking, Google is not monopolizing until they actually lose an antitrust case. So before that happens, if anyone wants to play the game legally, they have to abide to Google's ToS, no matter how absurd it is, no?
  - mytherin 5y ago
    No, they are not convicted of monopolising until they lose an antitrust case. That doesn't mean they aren't monopolising right now, it just means there hasn't been a verdict set against them for illegal monopolisation. Cases such as these (and discussing cases such as these) will help in mounting evidence against Google for abuse of their monopoly position.

busymom0 5y ago

How does one ensure that the contract is even being abided with when such company refuses to even provide any info? Google, Amazon, VISA/Mastercard, Apple etc companies have basically become the railroads of 21st century and they need to be treated the same way the railroads got treated in the 19th century. https://theconversation.com/for-tech-giants-a-cautionary-tale-from-19th-century-railroads-on-the-limits-of-competition-91616 https://theconversation.com/for-tech-giants-a-cautionary-tal...

mytherin 5y ago

The reason government is treated differently from companies in that regard is because the government has a natural monopoly in many areas. You cannot choose an alternative government, you are forced to deal with the one there is. When companies hold monopoly status (which Google absolutely does), there is also no real, viable alternative to choose from. When publishing on Android, realistically you are forced to deal with Google. They are not any different from a government in that regard. The only difference between Google and the actual government is that (under the current set of laws) Google can get away with levels of abuse without recourse that the government cannot. > Of course, DroidScript has the freedom to choose different ad provider altogether, but they didn't. They could have chosen a different ad provider, but that is clearly not the problem. They could not have chosen a different publisher on Android without sacrificing >95% of their marketshare, and after being banned by Google from the play store it is game over for them.

CrendKing 5y ago
I agree with you. But legally speaking, Google is not monopolizing until they actually lose an antitrust case. So before that happens, if anyone wants to play the game legally, they have to abide to Google's ToS, no matter how absurd it is, no?
- mytherin 5y ago
  No, they are not convicted of monopolising until they lose an antitrust case. That doesn't mean they aren't monopolising right now, it just means there hasn't been a verdict set against them for illegal monopolisation. Cases such as these (and discussing cases such as these) will help in mounting evidence against Google for abuse of their monopoly position.