>...and one of the solutions they’ve proposed is to order Apple to carry apps it doesn’t like in its App Store. This isn’t how we’d do it. There are lots of way

>...and one of the solutions they’ve proposed is to order Apple to carry apps it doesn’t like in its App Store. This isn’t how we’d do it. There are lots of ways that forcing Apple to publish software it objects to can go wrong. The US government has an ugly habit of ordering Apple to sabotage the encryption its users depend on. > But Apple also sometimes decides to sabotage its encryption, in ways that expose its customers to terrible risk. Somewhat tangential note but this level of nuance in an article is just confusing. Why are they presenting an entire new argument (in the second quote) to refute the premise of their basis for rejecting the previous one? They dump this argument and move on to a completely unrelated point in the next paragraph, which frustrates me. Also, the second quote has "sabotage its encryption" and "expose its customers to terrible risk" as hyperlinks, meaning they are linking to entire write ups of why they believe this. I'm sure there is merit to the point, but why briefly mention such a bombshell point as an offhand comment in this article? Makes it much harder to read-- I feel like my attention is being pulled in a lot of different directions.