4 ms·

> The apparent desire for paternalism unnerves me. I find the EU imposing these conditions, under threat of force, on Apple that sells a product that people ar

> The apparent desire for paternalism unnerves me. I find the EU imposing these conditions, under threat of force, on Apple that sells a product that people are free to buy or not buy, much more paternalistic than anything Apple does.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
That is the role of governments. Europeans made the EU for this and similar purposes.
- bun_at_work 4y ago
  So you're not concerned with paternalism itself, you just don't like Apple, right?
  - antonymy 4y ago
    I think he doesn't like the fact that a corporation is controlling people for its own profit first and their customers' welfare a distant second. Apple is not a charity or a government, it's a business. The EU is a government, its purpose is to regulate and legislate for the sake of the people it represents. It's more sane to trust the motivations of the EU, even if its actions are ill-considered at times, than a corporation whose primary, overriding objective is to make its owners wealthier. The former will generally pursue actions that benefit consumers, the latter will only coincidentally do this, if it stands to make a lot of money in the process.
    - elzbardico 4y ago
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Whats the difference in between a corporation that dominates the life and choices of one half of the population and a feudal lord that does the same. The 'paternalistic Eu' is at least comprised of officials appointed through democratically elected parliamentarians. What kind of democratic powre does the public have in the decisions that Apple takes? What has the result of 'free market' mechanics been, other than increasingly dominate people's lives to maximize profit all the way to reducing their phone's performance just at the right time when a new version is going out to force them to upgrade?
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  EU isn't a government. "Europeans" do not elect members of the European parliament. Finally, I would argue that the reasons for forming what became the EU, back in late 40s and 50s last century, were completely different from what we have today.
  - minimaul 4y ago
    Europeans do elect members of the European parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parl...
    - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
      Indeed. My bad.
elzbardico 4y ago
Exactly. As if consumers needed to be protected from their own choices. Nobody is forced to buy apple. There are plenty of other manufacturers. Let the fucking market sort this.
xdennis 4y ago
You have a lot more freedom in the EU to switch countries than you do to switch phone ecosystems. There are 27 countries you can freely move between. If you work in one and move to another your pension gets rerouted when you retire. There are only two phone ecosystems. If you buy something in the Apple ecosystem, you don't suddenly have it rerouted to Android if you move. The EU isn't threatening force. It's a civil issue. Apple can just not sell in Europe. And even if Apple can't use force, it's a lot more authoritarian.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

That is the role of governments. Europeans made the EU for this and similar purposes.

bun_at_work 4y ago
So you're not concerned with paternalism itself, you just don't like Apple, right?
- antonymy 4y ago
  I think he doesn't like the fact that a corporation is controlling people for its own profit first and their customers' welfare a distant second. Apple is not a charity or a government, it's a business. The EU is a government, its purpose is to regulate and legislate for the sake of the people it represents. It's more sane to trust the motivations of the EU, even if its actions are ill-considered at times, than a corporation whose primary, overriding objective is to make its owners wealthier. The former will generally pursue actions that benefit consumers, the latter will only coincidentally do this, if it stands to make a lot of money in the process.
  - elzbardico 4y ago
- unity1001 4y ago
  Whats the difference in between a corporation that dominates the life and choices of one half of the population and a feudal lord that does the same. The 'paternalistic Eu' is at least comprised of officials appointed through democratically elected parliamentarians. What kind of democratic powre does the public have in the decisions that Apple takes? What has the result of 'free market' mechanics been, other than increasingly dominate people's lives to maximize profit all the way to reducing their phone's performance just at the right time when a new version is going out to force them to upgrade?
rad_gruchalski 4y ago
EU isn't a government. "Europeans" do not elect members of the European parliament. Finally, I would argue that the reasons for forming what became the EU, back in late 40s and 50s last century, were completely different from what we have today.
- minimaul 4y ago
  Europeans do elect members of the European parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parl...
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    Indeed. My bad.

elzbardico 4y ago

Exactly. As if consumers needed to be protected from their own choices. Nobody is forced to buy apple. There are plenty of other manufacturers. Let the fucking market sort this.

xdennis 4y ago

You have a lot more freedom in the EU to switch countries than you do to switch phone ecosystems. There are 27 countries you can freely move between. If you work in one and move to another your pension gets rerouted when you retire. There are only two phone ecosystems. If you buy something in the Apple ecosystem, you don't suddenly have it rerouted to Android if you move. The EU isn't threatening force. It's a civil issue. Apple can just not sell in Europe. And even if Apple can't use force, it's a lot more authoritarian.