7 ms·

> as evidenced by Twitter existing on iOS there is no “evidence”. it’s a 17+ app with sexual accounts actively banned all of the time which you can’t even acce

by kmlx 4y ago

> as evidenced by Twitter existing on iOS there is no “evidence”. it’s a 17+ app with sexual accounts actively banned all of the time which you can’t even access if you’re not logged in, NSFW is disabled by default etc etc > There is absolutely no reason that Apple should have the power to do that. actually there’s a huge reason: they built it, they own it. > Apple has the power to control what software you can download and run on YOUR device the device is meaningless, it’s all about the software. and you don’t own that. so you can’t impose your own rules.

rglullis 4y ago
> actually there’s a huge reason: they built it, they own it. Microsoft also built IE6 and they also built Windows. Should they have kept the power to bundle IE and to make it difficult for other browser developers?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Yes. They should.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Why? Can you please go ahead and explain why monopolies and anti-competitive practices should be accepted by societies?
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      I answered a single question, I did not endorse anti-competative practices across the board. In this particular case, they built it therfore they should be able to choose how to distribute it and establish privacy standards as they wish.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        What they were trying to do was considered anti-competitive practice, and "They built it therefore they can do whatever they want with it" in isolation makes absolutely no sense.
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        > answered a single question, I did not endorse anti-competative practices across the board. I also didn't say they could do "whatever they want". Could you please be a good faith conversationalist and reply only to what was actually said, as opposed to your misinterpretation of what was said?
        rglullis 4y ago
        Ok. Let's take what you said, so then maybe you can understand the problem. > they built it therefore they should be able to choose how to distribute it Tied selling is against the law. No matter who makes it, no matter if its free, if you make the acquisition of a product conditional on the acquisition of another one, it is illegal.
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        Okay? I never said it was legal.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  The funny thing is that they're doing it all over again with edge. And nobody is getting up in arms about it. Ps I still don't understand how "now copied from Google so it's better than that crappy earlier version we built ourselves" can be viewed in any kind of positive light :) It's basically an admission of incompetence. I mean, for a software company that's pretty bad. I just don't understand how they make it a selling point that they didn't write it themselves anymore. Also, I don't think the actual engine was why people didn't like the old Edge. It was more the UI for me. I never had issues with the rendering engine. The could have done the same overhaul with their own engine and it would have been fine too. An extra engine would have been better for the web as an ecosystem, we're now seeing too much of the "IE Effect" with chromium.
oneoff786 4y ago
> actually there’s a huge reason: they built it, they own it. Well we built our society, and we own it, so they can fucking deal if they want to sell stuff in our society and we set some rules about what they can do.
- V-2 4y ago
  "We" as opposed to "they" is a bit problematic here. Apple, too, consists of people who have contributed to building the society, they're not some alien overlords from outer space.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    It’s not. They’re members of a larger group. They have to abide by the rules of the group if they want to enjoy the benefits of society.
    - V-2 4y ago
      You mean legislation? :)
- midislack 4y ago
  We want big tech companies to attack each other though.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
    - midislack 4y ago
      It means when you see Apple and Facebook fighting, you SUPPORT it. Every minute they're busy with each other is one less minute they can devote to fist fucking the public.
      - 4y ago
stale2002 4y ago
> so you can’t impose your own rules. Actually, we can. We can make a law and enforce it. And there are literally laws being considered to do this. If you don't like democracy, then feel free to move to a different country.
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  There’s a lot of “feel free to... {vote, leave, whatever}” in this thread but I just want to add there’s very little freedom in the American voting system. You’ve got two choices, sometimes no choice if you live in a “safe” district. Ya’ll need to get angry about not having 1 person 1 vote before angrily telling everyone else to use theirs.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Those two (or one) choices are also voted on. You can vote in primaries. AOC won the primary in a safe district against the 4th most powerful Democrat in the federal government.
    - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
      She’s a black swan. Good for her and your democracy not being completely and utterly dead
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        It wasn't random. It was the result of a group devoted to winning primaries. They've had some success, starting the same year as (but not exclusively) with her. And continuing through this year. She was the most prominent upset result, but that's because of how powerful who she defeated was. There isn't much room above what she did.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    In fact, most American voters live in "safe districts" today, and their number generally goes down over time. On the federal level, we currently have something like 350 districts that lean strongly towards one or the other party, and 80 that are actually competitive.
vorpalhex 4y ago
> the device is meaningless, it’s all about the software. and you don’t own that. You are correct - that is the problem. Imagine if your car manufacturer prevented you from using Spotify or Deez or whatever music service you wanted and REQUIRED you to listen to SiriusXM at a significantly marked up cost. That's the issue.

by kmlx 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

> actually there’s a huge reason: they built it, they own it. Microsoft also built IE6 and they also built Windows. Should they have kept the power to bundle IE and to make it difficult for other browser developers?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CodeSgt 4y ago
Yes. They should.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Why? Can you please go ahead and explain why monopolies and anti-competitive practices should be accepted by societies?
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    I answered a single question, I did not endorse anti-competative practices across the board. In this particular case, they built it therfore they should be able to choose how to distribute it and establish privacy standards as they wish.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      What they were trying to do was considered anti-competitive practice, and "They built it therefore they can do whatever they want with it" in isolation makes absolutely no sense.
      - CodeSgt 4y ago
        > answered a single question, I did not endorse anti-competative practices across the board. I also didn't say they could do "whatever they want". Could you please be a good faith conversationalist and reply only to what was actually said, as opposed to your misinterpretation of what was said?
        rglullis 4y ago
        Ok. Let's take what you said, so then maybe you can understand the problem. > they built it therefore they should be able to choose how to distribute it Tied selling is against the law. No matter who makes it, no matter if its free, if you make the acquisition of a product conditional on the acquisition of another one, it is illegal.
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        Okay? I never said it was legal.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
The funny thing is that they're doing it all over again with edge. And nobody is getting up in arms about it. Ps I still don't understand how "now copied from Google so it's better than that crappy earlier version we built ourselves" can be viewed in any kind of positive light :) It's basically an admission of incompetence. I mean, for a software company that's pretty bad. I just don't understand how they make it a selling point that they didn't write it themselves anymore. Also, I don't think the actual engine was why people didn't like the old Edge. It was more the UI for me. I never had issues with the rendering engine. The could have done the same overhaul with their own engine and it would have been fine too. An extra engine would have been better for the web as an ecosystem, we're now seeing too much of the "IE Effect" with chromium.

oneoff786 4y ago

> actually there’s a huge reason: they built it, they own it. Well we built our society, and we own it, so they can fucking deal if they want to sell stuff in our society and we set some rules about what they can do.

V-2 4y ago
"We" as opposed to "they" is a bit problematic here. Apple, too, consists of people who have contributed to building the society, they're not some alien overlords from outer space.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  It’s not. They’re members of a larger group. They have to abide by the rules of the group if they want to enjoy the benefits of society.
  - V-2 4y ago
    You mean legislation? :)
midislack 4y ago
We want big tech companies to attack each other though.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
  - midislack 4y ago
    It means when you see Apple and Facebook fighting, you SUPPORT it. Every minute they're busy with each other is one less minute they can devote to fist fucking the public.
    - 4y ago

stale2002 4y ago

> so you can’t impose your own rules. Actually, we can. We can make a law and enforce it. And there are literally laws being considered to do this. If you don't like democracy, then feel free to move to a different country.

mrcartmeneses 4y ago
There’s a lot of “feel free to... {vote, leave, whatever}” in this thread but I just want to add there’s very little freedom in the American voting system. You’ve got two choices, sometimes no choice if you live in a “safe” district. Ya’ll need to get angry about not having 1 person 1 vote before angrily telling everyone else to use theirs.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Those two (or one) choices are also voted on. You can vote in primaries. AOC won the primary in a safe district against the 4th most powerful Democrat in the federal government.
  - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
    She’s a black swan. Good for her and your democracy not being completely and utterly dead
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      It wasn't random. It was the result of a group devoted to winning primaries. They've had some success, starting the same year as (but not exclusively) with her. And continuing through this year. She was the most prominent upset result, but that's because of how powerful who she defeated was. There isn't much room above what she did.
- int_19h 4y ago
  In fact, most American voters live in "safe districts" today, and their number generally goes down over time. On the federal level, we currently have something like 350 districts that lean strongly towards one or the other party, and 80 that are actually competitive.

vorpalhex 4y ago

> the device is meaningless, it’s all about the software. and you don’t own that. You are correct - that is the problem. Imagine if your car manufacturer prevented you from using Spotify or Deez or whatever music service you wanted and REQUIRED you to listen to SiriusXM at a significantly marked up cost. That's the issue.