4 ms·

So less freedom is good because freedom is good but any extra freedom will be stolen anyway? This is an idiotic take.

Spivak 3y ago
Yes, you're poorly explaining the difference between freedom-as-in-liberty and freedom-as-in-anarchy and then calling it idiotic. You are literally more free if there were no laws about murder but your actual real life freedom would be reduced because you of all the precautions you now have to take. Apple right now is operating as a de facto governing body forcing developers on the platform to follow its rules that whether or not you like it do sometimes benefit the user against some of the very worst actors. Taking away their ability to have those rules does also take away the benefits users get. And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Whether or not that's worth it to you is fine, both stances are valid but it does logically follow.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  > And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Ah yes, we don't trust an actual elected government to enforce consumer protections, so we'll trust a private monopoly instead. In a thread about said government enforcing said consumer protections, no less.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Just because you call it consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives, which is the point the other commenter is trying to make but you insist on flattening into a straw man.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      You are making a strwman here, not GP. GP litterally responded to, and quoted, this sentence: "And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections.". How do you get that sentence to mean that "consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives"? How?
      - shuckles 3y ago
        Picking a single sentence in a long comment is flattening.
  - intended 3y ago
    Apple is not a monopoly. That is why we have contrast points - eg the Android ecosystem, to see how privacy and user centric reality is. Users are the end customers for apple. For platforms, advertisers are end customers. All arguments in this thread roll up to - - You cant have open systems with an advertiser driven economies. Until people are the end customers for platforms, as ridiculous as it may sound, Apple is the only other choice. Even MSFT has started inserting ads into Windows. Good grief.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Apple is a monopoly on the market of Apple apps. You can’t just hand-wave away self-created platforms, and given how absolutely important and essential mobile phones are, it’s only fair that the government gets a say there.
      - intended 3y ago
        That is not the definition on a monopoly. And if the question is of "its only fair that govt gets a say", then its a question of what Govt says fairly. If your goal is user freedom, then Apple is the only eco system that is actually pro user, compared to the alternative (Android). In which case, Govt should be tearing into Android/Google and all advertising driven/invasive platforms. Govt would have to advocate that Android be out of Google's purview, or all mobile OS dev be separated. The issue isn't Apple. Its Economics.
        kaba0 3y ago
        We can call it “exerting their power in unrelated markets” as well.
      - a-user-you-like 3y ago
        Apples market share is less than Android. Your argument is like saying Amazon is a monopoly in the kindle store. Some folks are just power hungry and like to wield force unnecessarily.
      - pmontra 3y ago
- kaba0 3y ago
  While I agree with the distinction between freedom-as-in-{anarchy, liberty), I don’t think this argument stands in case of Apple. Their OS is very secure and has a top notch sandbox - that’s the actual defense boundary on their devices. They do barely any AppStore checks. I think the optimum would be a well-hidden (like android dev mode, click 6 times on whatever option), but possible sideloading without hacks like AltStore/7-day resigns, etc. Maybe they shouldn’t even allow other stores, just apps - as installing is a very specific permission.
- lodovic 3y ago
  > And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections The EU probably has the strongest consumer protection laws. And they do enforce them. Which is the subject of the linked story.

Yes, you're poorly explaining the difference between freedom-as-in-liberty and freedom-as-in-anarchy and then calling it idiotic. You are literally more free if there were no laws about murder but your actual real life freedom would be reduced because you of all the precautions you now have to take. Apple right now is operating as a de facto governing body forcing developers on the platform to follow its rules that whether or not you like it do sometimes benefit the user against some of the very worst actors. Taking away their ability to have those rules does also take away the benefits users get. And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Whether or not that's worth it to you is fine, both stances are valid but it does logically follow.

Kinrany 3y ago
> And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Ah yes, we don't trust an actual elected government to enforce consumer protections, so we'll trust a private monopoly instead. In a thread about said government enforcing said consumer protections, no less.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Just because you call it consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives, which is the point the other commenter is trying to make but you insist on flattening into a straw man.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    You are making a strwman here, not GP. GP litterally responded to, and quoted, this sentence: "And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections.". How do you get that sentence to mean that "consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives"? How?
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Picking a single sentence in a long comment is flattening.
- intended 3y ago
  Apple is not a monopoly. That is why we have contrast points - eg the Android ecosystem, to see how privacy and user centric reality is. Users are the end customers for apple. For platforms, advertisers are end customers. All arguments in this thread roll up to - - You cant have open systems with an advertiser driven economies. Until people are the end customers for platforms, as ridiculous as it may sound, Apple is the only other choice. Even MSFT has started inserting ads into Windows. Good grief.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Apple is a monopoly on the market of Apple apps. You can’t just hand-wave away self-created platforms, and given how absolutely important and essential mobile phones are, it’s only fair that the government gets a say there.
    - intended 3y ago
      That is not the definition on a monopoly. And if the question is of "its only fair that govt gets a say", then its a question of what Govt says fairly. If your goal is user freedom, then Apple is the only eco system that is actually pro user, compared to the alternative (Android). In which case, Govt should be tearing into Android/Google and all advertising driven/invasive platforms. Govt would have to advocate that Android be out of Google's purview, or all mobile OS dev be separated. The issue isn't Apple. Its Economics.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        We can call it “exerting their power in unrelated markets” as well.
    - a-user-you-like 3y ago
      Apples market share is less than Android. Your argument is like saying Amazon is a monopoly in the kindle store. Some folks are just power hungry and like to wield force unnecessarily.
    - pmontra 3y ago
kaba0 3y ago
While I agree with the distinction between freedom-as-in-{anarchy, liberty), I don’t think this argument stands in case of Apple. Their OS is very secure and has a top notch sandbox - that’s the actual defense boundary on their devices. They do barely any AppStore checks. I think the optimum would be a well-hidden (like android dev mode, click 6 times on whatever option), but possible sideloading without hacks like AltStore/7-day resigns, etc. Maybe they shouldn’t even allow other stores, just apps - as installing is a very specific permission.
lodovic 3y ago
> And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections The EU probably has the strongest consumer protection laws. And they do enforce them. Which is the subject of the linked story.