4 ms·

People are not granted limited liability like corporations are. The original intention was not that corporations are given permission to pursue profits without

People are not granted limited liability like corporations are. The original intention was not that corporations are given permission to pursue profits without regard to any other factors. What would be so wrong with the people mandating a next generation messaging standard and requiring all cell phone manufacturers add support for the new standard? Kind of like Europe did with charging cables. Would that make the world a better or a worse place? I never said anything about making iMessage the only available option. Apple users could keep iMessage, too. Worst case their users have more options. I agree that it is an interesting question on how far the will of the people goes, i.e. democracy vs mob rule. But I wouldn't put corporate profits on a pedestal over all other considerations.

redcobra762 3y ago
We're not discussing "the people mandating a next-generation messaging standard." We're discussing the suggestion that the US government nationalize iMessage. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations as people" or "corporate greed." iMessage is not critical to living life in the United States or globally, so the notion that a government ought to take it from Apple anyway seems to be completely unjustified.
- mikem170 3y ago
  But I never said anything about nationalizing iMessage. Maybe someone else said that, or there's some other misunderstanding? I mentioned that mandated support on phones for a new and better messaging standard seems like a reasonable idea. There's even precedent for such things - the European Universal Charger Mandate. How is that taking iMessage from Apple? They can still run their own separate messenger, like they do now. Are you worried about them loosing the advantage they have by using their market size to keep users on their proprietary messaging system and not wanting more competition? Is that kind of like how they used to make extra money selling proprietary charging cables?
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    I think you’re forgetting who you responded to. My question was how nationalizing iMessage is a justified position, because that’s what the person I replied to said. That’s the topic, that’s what I was discussing.
    - mikem170 3y ago
      Ah, I see where someone mentioned "obliged to make their products/services interoperable". By "nationalize" I assume you were thinking of things like mandates that Apple servers be required to support third-party iMessage clients, or that the government takes over Apple's iMessage servers. I don't like these ideas, either. But I think there are a lot of other possibilities, and precedents. The U.S. regulates and imposes on carriers to handle wiretaps and spam, Europe mandates that phone manufacturers use interoperable power adapters, baseband chips in phones are heavily regulated, etc. Other industries like banking and mining and construction are steeped in regulation. Justified as being for the public good. Perhaps a better interoperable messaging standard could be implemented as a mandated replacement for sms and mms. The goal is better baseline messaging for all users. Companies can still do their own thing besides that, like they do now. What do you think of such an idea?
      - redcobra762 3y ago
        I replied to this comment: > At a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces with this comment: > What justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue. You then said: > Devil's advocate... > Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good. > If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it. > Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools. When one says "[To play] Devil's advocate", one is taking on the position opposite of the person they're speaking with. My position is, "What is the justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage?" That means you're taking the position of, "There is justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage." You then do this by saying your third line, that if a democracy has a majority of people wanting something, you see no reason why they shouldn't have it. Intentional or not, you took on the position that iMessage should be taken from Apple by the US government and forcibly open-sourced because that's the will of the people. When I responded, I was responding to the comments you had made in this direction, which you continued to make. What I think is that iMessage is owned by Apple, and since it doesn't provide any critical and otherwise unobtainable service, it should not be nationalized. That was what we were discussing. I didn't opt to participate in an open-ended discussion that bounces around on the general topic of open sourced messaging platforms, I responded to a specific argument with a specific counterpoint.

redcobra762 3y ago

We're not discussing "the people mandating a next-generation messaging standard." We're discussing the suggestion that the US government nationalize iMessage. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations as people" or "corporate greed." iMessage is not critical to living life in the United States or globally, so the notion that a government ought to take it from Apple anyway seems to be completely unjustified.

mikem170 3y ago
But I never said anything about nationalizing iMessage. Maybe someone else said that, or there's some other misunderstanding? I mentioned that mandated support on phones for a new and better messaging standard seems like a reasonable idea. There's even precedent for such things - the European Universal Charger Mandate. How is that taking iMessage from Apple? They can still run their own separate messenger, like they do now. Are you worried about them loosing the advantage they have by using their market size to keep users on their proprietary messaging system and not wanting more competition? Is that kind of like how they used to make extra money selling proprietary charging cables?
- redcobra762 3y ago
  I think you’re forgetting who you responded to. My question was how nationalizing iMessage is a justified position, because that’s what the person I replied to said. That’s the topic, that’s what I was discussing.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    Ah, I see where someone mentioned "obliged to make their products/services interoperable". By "nationalize" I assume you were thinking of things like mandates that Apple servers be required to support third-party iMessage clients, or that the government takes over Apple's iMessage servers. I don't like these ideas, either. But I think there are a lot of other possibilities, and precedents. The U.S. regulates and imposes on carriers to handle wiretaps and spam, Europe mandates that phone manufacturers use interoperable power adapters, baseband chips in phones are heavily regulated, etc. Other industries like banking and mining and construction are steeped in regulation. Justified as being for the public good. Perhaps a better interoperable messaging standard could be implemented as a mandated replacement for sms and mms. The goal is better baseline messaging for all users. Companies can still do their own thing besides that, like they do now. What do you think of such an idea?
    - redcobra762 3y ago
      I replied to this comment: > At a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces with this comment: > What justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue. You then said: > Devil's advocate... > Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good. > If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it. > Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools. When one says "[To play] Devil's advocate", one is taking on the position opposite of the person they're speaking with. My position is, "What is the justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage?" That means you're taking the position of, "There is justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage." You then do this by saying your third line, that if a democracy has a majority of people wanting something, you see no reason why they shouldn't have it. Intentional or not, you took on the position that iMessage should be taken from Apple by the US government and forcibly open-sourced because that's the will of the people. When I responded, I was responding to the comments you had made in this direction, which you continued to make. What I think is that iMessage is owned by Apple, and since it doesn't provide any critical and otherwise unobtainable service, it should not be nationalized. That was what we were discussing. I didn't opt to participate in an open-ended discussion that bounces around on the general topic of open sourced messaging platforms, I responded to a specific argument with a specific counterpoint.