which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that FAANG companies have a massive lobbying spend. The issue is that some systems are invasive. If we don't m

which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that FAANG companies have a massive lobbying spend. The issue is that some systems are invasive. If we don't make any collective decision to restrict some behaviors (like lobbying) all the (legal) freedom in the world is meaningless, because the options available have been reduced anyway. If we, say, allow intel to install hardware-based binary signature checking, it doesn't matter how legal it is to run X piece of software, cause where the hell are you gonna run it? The primary argument I hear against this thinking is "so the market will correct because you can just buy elsewhere". Free markets have been the norm for a while now, and it's not gotten better, it's gotten worse. Go out and buy a phone that 1) does all you want it to do and 2) lasts more than 4 years. Have fun with that. There's more than one way to exert control over other people's business, and governance isn't even the biggest offender. Yes, we should keep the government from overreach and it is indeed overreach. But we should also reinstate glass-steagall and drive over K street with a fleet of bulldozers.