3 ms·
In essence that is arguing that an abusive monopoly (facebook) must be fought with another abusive monopoly (apple).
by berkes 6y ago
In essence that is arguing that an abusive monopoly (facebook) must be fought with another abusive monopoly (apple).
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> that is arguing that an abusive monopoly (facebook) must be fought with another abusive monopoly (apple) Plus the entire den of pests that is adtech and its various tracking companies, most of whom are far from monopolies.
- Gaelan 6y agoYeah, I suppose that is what I am arguing. Apple is absolutely an abusive monopoly, but tackling them alone without simultaneously handling Facebook and co would result in a net loss for the average consumer.
- havernator 6y agoAbsent government regulation? Yes, exactly. If Mecha-Godzilla shows up I'm very, very happy to have Godzilla around to fuck them up, even if Godzilla is a dangerous monster and it would be better to have no monsters.
- Mindwipe 6y agoAnd screw the vulnerable people your Gozilla murders under it's feet eh?
- havernator 6y agoSince don’t-have-monsters isn’t an option—yes? Especially since most of the ones being “murdered” by Apple aren’t the vulnerable, in any kind of relevant sense, but software developers and publishes. People who just use the devices knew what they were getting and paid extra for it.
- fossuser 6y agoIt's not abusive if it benefits its users.