7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Yeah but you know what’s better than relying on Facebook to write PR articles against Apple? Making sensible regulations.
      - midislack 4y ago
        Regulations are made by the people who pay Congress.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        Oh geez better just give up then
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I cannot stand up to intrusive ad tech that Facebook can generate alone. At least, not at a reasonable time cost. Open source software can do pretty well. But I trust Apple more than myself to maintain a perimeter against Facebook and Googles intrusions on my behalf.
TameAntelope 4y ago
"We"? Which "we"? The larger you make the pool, the smaller your individual impact is in that pool. If your "we" includes everyone in the US, then your voice is one of ~330m people, and should have vanishingly small impact. If "we" includes ~8b people, then your voice is ~20x smaller still. I think you'd be surprised at how many of those ~330m (or ~8b) people would be perfectly okay with what Apple has done, and generally how much more important property rights are to what "we" have built than some esoteric fight about how you don't want to allow me the right to sell my privacy for a price I deem appropriate. "We" don't want you to tell us what we can and can't do with our own data. Maybe we are perfectly happy to let Apple have some of our data, and are honestly tired of hearing you talk about how we don't know any better.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > We"? Which "we"? The "we" that is currently going through the Democratic process of passing laws which are almost certainly going to pass. > "We" don't want you to tell us Feel free to vote for a different lawmaker then. Or that is what you should have done, because it is too late in Europe already. They are going to pass the digital markets act. Go participate in democracy if you disagree.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > Go participate in democracy if you disagree. Thanks - this actually inspired me to write to my senator and congressional rep at the federal level in the US to not regulate Apple or its ability to decide what content goes on the iOS App Store. I love the iPhone and App Store, and Apple has earned my trust with their stewardship of it, and there is no logical reason that they should be regulated differently than any other marketplace. Any proposed changes or regulations that I've seen that target the iOS App Store are bad for me personally. I'd actually like to see us pass a digital markets act or similar that guarantees Apple (and Google, etc.) stewardship over their products and platforms. Certainly I'm one of many voices (honestly outside of a place like HN or tech journals nobody gives even the slightest shit about what Apple does on the App Store) here, but I'll make sure my voice is heard to the extent that it makes sense to engage here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Yeah but you know what’s better than relying on Facebook to write PR articles against Apple? Making sensible regulations.
    - midislack 4y ago
      Regulations are made by the people who pay Congress.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        Oh geez better just give up then
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I cannot stand up to intrusive ad tech that Facebook can generate alone. At least, not at a reasonable time cost. Open source software can do pretty well. But I trust Apple more than myself to maintain a perimeter against Facebook and Googles intrusions on my behalf.

TameAntelope 4y ago

"We"? Which "we"? The larger you make the pool, the smaller your individual impact is in that pool. If your "we" includes everyone in the US, then your voice is one of ~330m people, and should have vanishingly small impact. If "we" includes ~8b people, then your voice is ~20x smaller still. I think you'd be surprised at how many of those ~330m (or ~8b) people would be perfectly okay with what Apple has done, and generally how much more important property rights are to what "we" have built than some esoteric fight about how you don't want to allow me the right to sell my privacy for a price I deem appropriate. "We" don't want you to tell us what we can and can't do with our own data. Maybe we are perfectly happy to let Apple have some of our data, and are honestly tired of hearing you talk about how we don't know any better.

stale2002 4y ago
> We"? Which "we"? The "we" that is currently going through the Democratic process of passing laws which are almost certainly going to pass. > "We" don't want you to tell us Feel free to vote for a different lawmaker then. Or that is what you should have done, because it is too late in Europe already. They are going to pass the digital markets act. Go participate in democracy if you disagree.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > Go participate in democracy if you disagree. Thanks - this actually inspired me to write to my senator and congressional rep at the federal level in the US to not regulate Apple or its ability to decide what content goes on the iOS App Store. I love the iPhone and App Store, and Apple has earned my trust with their stewardship of it, and there is no logical reason that they should be regulated differently than any other marketplace. Any proposed changes or regulations that I've seen that target the iOS App Store are bad for me personally. I'd actually like to see us pass a digital markets act or similar that guarantees Apple (and Google, etc.) stewardship over their products and platforms. Certainly I'm one of many voices (honestly outside of a place like HN or tech journals nobody gives even the slightest shit about what Apple does on the App Store) here, but I'll make sure my voice is heard to the extent that it makes sense to engage here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]