I 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-

I 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!”