3 ms·
the article makes good points, but i don’t think the conclusion is obvious. for example, i want the freedom to not interact with Google. a ruling to require Go
by colinsane 4y ago
the article makes good points, but i don’t think the conclusion is obvious. for example, i want the freedom to not interact with Google. a ruling to require Google provide services to every individual might allow for a future corresponding ruling, that individuals must interact with Google (or at least, this becomes the socially acceptable view, which shapes laws later). wiser, i think, would be to prevent any single company from becoming critical to participation in society.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoI don't think that really solves anything here, because nothing in the story indicates that Google was critical to Mark's participation in society. He got new contact information and it sounds like he's been able to (with some effort) get all his non-Google accounts switched over. He didn't get fired, or evicted, or land in any legal trouble. He just liked Google's services and enjoyed using them until he was unfairly banned.