3 ms·
Or, to expand a bit: If Apple should be expected to open up iMessage, then why shouldn't Facebook be expected to allow interoperability with Messenger, and Tel
by danaris 3y ago
Or, to expand a bit:
If Apple should be expected to open up iMessage, then why shouldn't Facebook be expected to allow interoperability with Messenger, and Telegram and Signal forced to open those up, too?
Or, if you wish to take it a slightly different way: Why shouldn't the New York Times be expected to give everyone a copy of their paper for free? Information and good journalism are a public good, after all.
Why shouldn't pharmaceutical companies be expected to make all life-saving medications available for free?
Why shouldn't ISPs be expected to make Internet access available to all for free?
- edrxty 3y agoI mean, we could structure our society so that everything wasn't arbitrarily gated but that would be gasp socialism. Also, Telegram and Signal are already open and can be bridged from anything to anything so yeah, we should force Messenger and Imessage to accept, at a minimum, bridging as well.
- danaris 3y agoTo be honest, I personally agree that we should be forcing at least some of these things for the common good (and, to the extent necessary, funding them with significantly-more-progressive taxes). My point is primarily that it's not particularly logical to single out Apple for this treatment if that's your principle. Good to know about Telegram and Signal—I don't use or know much about them. IMNSHO, my argument still holds even removing them from the equation.