3 ms·

> She knew the rules when she started playing this game Knowing the situation is not the same as accepting it. Just because I know a couple of large actors con

> She knew the rules when she started playing this game Knowing the situation is not the same as accepting it. Just because I know a couple of large actors control the market does not mean I have to accept the situation.

insert_coin 5y ago
If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is exactly what it means.
- TX0098812 5y ago
  ...no. You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a requirement to enter the market.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    They are not required to accept them, OnlyFans is doing it just fine without Apple. They chose to be in Apple's platform. Voluntarily.
  - qeternity 5y ago
    This is absurd. In any other situation you’d never argue this. Ok, so I can just ignore all regulations because I don’t like them? I can sell unsafe food in my restaurant because I don’t want to agree to the terms the government says I must adhere to?
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      It's not absurd. Have you never heard the term "contract of adhesion"? And contracts aren't the same as laws and regulations, so throw that strawman out. Laws and regulations are enacted through a process designed to serve the greater good.
  - iamdbtoo 5y ago
    If it's a requirement to enter the market, why wasn't it considered when developing the business model?
  - s3r3nity 5y ago
    What market? The market of iOS users? There are literally more users on Android - If I were in that position, I could just switch platforms. If I'm a radio manufacturer, I can't cry foul that Lamborghini won't allow me to sell my radio in their cars by calling them a monopolist over the "market of Lamborghini drivers." If I then decide to still make an exclusive Lamborghini radio, I own that responsibility for my failed business model.
fooey 5y ago
It does mean you shouldn't bet your business on winning that fight
- TX0098812 5y ago
  Per definition the existence of the business depends on entering the fight.

insert_coin 5y ago

If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is exactly what it means.

TX0098812 5y ago
...no. You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a requirement to enter the market.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  They are not required to accept them, OnlyFans is doing it just fine without Apple. They chose to be in Apple's platform. Voluntarily.
- qeternity 5y ago
  This is absurd. In any other situation you’d never argue this. Ok, so I can just ignore all regulations because I don’t like them? I can sell unsafe food in my restaurant because I don’t want to agree to the terms the government says I must adhere to?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    It's not absurd. Have you never heard the term "contract of adhesion"? And contracts aren't the same as laws and regulations, so throw that strawman out. Laws and regulations are enacted through a process designed to serve the greater good.
- iamdbtoo 5y ago
  If it's a requirement to enter the market, why wasn't it considered when developing the business model?
- s3r3nity 5y ago
  What market? The market of iOS users? There are literally more users on Android - If I were in that position, I could just switch platforms. If I'm a radio manufacturer, I can't cry foul that Lamborghini won't allow me to sell my radio in their cars by calling them a monopolist over the "market of Lamborghini drivers." If I then decide to still make an exclusive Lamborghini radio, I own that responsibility for my failed business model.

fooey 5y ago

It does mean you shouldn't bet your business on winning that fight

TX0098812 5y ago
Per definition the existence of the business depends on entering the fight.