3 ms·
>> Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable G
by abduhl 5y ago
>> Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.
You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating. I don’t understand how you can say “Apple’s retaliatory and discriminatory practices in choosing who to do business with is the touchstone of government” at the same time you list four perfectly good examples of a government entity not being able to do exactly what you say is the touchstone of a government.
You’re wrong. Apple is a private company. Doing business with people you want to do business with, and not doing business with people you don’t want to do business with (barring certain discriminatory practices), is literally what distinguishes private companies from government entities. If you want to argue that the App Store or iPhones or iMacs or MacBooks are somehow critical public infrastructure that should be governed by, apparently, common carrier laws then you should do that directly.
- Jensson 5y ago> You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating. Responsible governments doesn't retaliate, oppressive governments tend to retaliate a lot. So you are right, Apple isn't acting like a responsible government, but the argument was that it is acting like an oppressive one.
- abduhl 5y agoSomehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the water like a duck, it’s an eagle?
- Jensson 5y agoNo, the argument isn't "Apple is like a government since Apple is retaliating". The argument is "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate". And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".
- abduhl 5y agoI understand the definitional argument that is being made, but it still makes no sense. This was the statement: “ Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.” A quasi government isn’t a government. A privately owned and unregulated entity isn’t a government. That’s the whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is like a government then of course Apple should be treated like a government. But on the face of the analysis, they’re not like a government. You need to support how they’re like a government. What about them is like a government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the argument that they ARE a government. It’s like saying “Apple is a duck, but it isn’t acting like a duck because it’s acting like an eagle!” and then when someone says “but Apple is an eagle by law and has always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a duck?” you responded with “you’re missing the point, I said they’re a duck so they should act like one!”
- judge2020 5y agoThe comment makes no arguments for this point, though - it establishes an opinion (Apple acting like a government) then starts listing off facts like they support that argument.