4 ms·

Ah, I see where someone mentioned "obliged to make their products/services interoperable". By "nationalize" I assume you were thinking of things like mandates

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.
- mikem170 3y ago
  > What justification is there for this, though? In hindsight I assume that you were thinking of the government taking iMessage from Apple? I didn't see anyone mention that specifically, and I never assumed that would be how the government would approach this. Everybody knows that social democracies have plenty of legal justification and precedent for doing such things. They impose on industry all the time, in many different sectors. They have done such things as mandate interoperability, and they could do so in order to allow for more capable messaging for everyone, perhaps updates to existing sms/mms like I mentioned, without targeting one company specifically. When enough voters care about an issue our representatives respond within regulatory and constitutional limits. Whether you agree or not, that's how the world we live in works. We don't live in an Ayn Rand novel. My initial reply spoke to the moral justification underpinning the legal justification for such things, i.e. the public good. > Intentional or not, you took on the position... I tried to correct your erroneous assumptions about my position in our thread, and ask questions to learn more about yours. That has not gone well. One might wonder if you are deflecting for some reason. > 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. Sometimes back and forth is required to avoid misunderstandings, to better explore a nuanced topic, and to narrow things down instead of talking in circles. Fine by me if you'd rather not.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    None of this is relevant to what you originally said or what I asked, and at this point I think you know that. But why try so hard to steer this wildly far from the original topic? Initially I presumed malice, but at this point I'm guessing you don't get to have these kinds of conversations a lot and are just vomiting anything that comes to your mind. If you want to continue the discussion, directly answer the following question: What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service? You wanted to play the Devil's advocate, right? So do it. Or don't, but the above was the topic. The topic was not, "People ought to be allowed to make a separate messaging protocol if they want to." Of course that's obviously fine, by the way, nobody suggested it wasn't, and in fact that's exactly what RCS is purporting to be. Or pick any of a dozen other protocols, the concept is the least controversial possible position on the topic to take. Why are you so intent on talking about what is the single most unoriginal and boring aspect of this entire debate (because everybody agrees with what you're saying)?

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.

mikem170 3y ago
> What justification is there for this, though? In hindsight I assume that you were thinking of the government taking iMessage from Apple? I didn't see anyone mention that specifically, and I never assumed that would be how the government would approach this. Everybody knows that social democracies have plenty of legal justification and precedent for doing such things. They impose on industry all the time, in many different sectors. They have done such things as mandate interoperability, and they could do so in order to allow for more capable messaging for everyone, perhaps updates to existing sms/mms like I mentioned, without targeting one company specifically. When enough voters care about an issue our representatives respond within regulatory and constitutional limits. Whether you agree or not, that's how the world we live in works. We don't live in an Ayn Rand novel. My initial reply spoke to the moral justification underpinning the legal justification for such things, i.e. the public good. > Intentional or not, you took on the position... I tried to correct your erroneous assumptions about my position in our thread, and ask questions to learn more about yours. That has not gone well. One might wonder if you are deflecting for some reason. > 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. Sometimes back and forth is required to avoid misunderstandings, to better explore a nuanced topic, and to narrow things down instead of talking in circles. Fine by me if you'd rather not.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  None of this is relevant to what you originally said or what I asked, and at this point I think you know that. But why try so hard to steer this wildly far from the original topic? Initially I presumed malice, but at this point I'm guessing you don't get to have these kinds of conversations a lot and are just vomiting anything that comes to your mind. If you want to continue the discussion, directly answer the following question: What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service? You wanted to play the Devil's advocate, right? So do it. Or don't, but the above was the topic. The topic was not, "People ought to be allowed to make a separate messaging protocol if they want to." Of course that's obviously fine, by the way, nobody suggested it wasn't, and in fact that's exactly what RCS is purporting to be. Or pick any of a dozen other protocols, the concept is the least controversial possible position on the topic to take. Why are you so intent on talking about what is the single most unoriginal and boring aspect of this entire debate (because everybody agrees with what you're saying)?