4 ms·

> 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

> 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)?
- mikem170 3y ago
  Your question: > What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service? Justifications, in order of specificity: 1) Political philosophy: "government action is occasionally the only feasible or cost-effective way of bringing about an outcome which each person sees as beneficial - or would see as beneficial under idealized epistemic conditions - but which they lack the power to bring about unilaterally" [1] 2) Better user experience: "When a sector is extremely concentrated, the people who are willing to trade the public good and foundational democratic values for incremental increases in their employer’s profitability get a hearing within the company and take over the company’s decision making. When a business doesn’t have to worry about losing its customers due to abusing them ... eventually becomes a serious hazard to human rights." [2] 3) U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "The U.S. Supreme Court - just like the EU - recognized that interoperability was a critical user benefit that assured innovation and lowered cost" [3] 4) Legal precedent: The 1996 Telecommunications Act "sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks" [4] 5) Proposed new law: "The U.S. ACCESS Act of 2021 mandates data portability from big tech companies." [5] This specific law didn't address messaging, but does address other services. Quite a few other anti-trust reforms have been implemented and are being discussed. 6) Department of Justice investigation: The DOJ is currently looking into "whether Apple is doing something it shouldn't be - blocking access to iMessage for reasons other than privacy and security." [6] 7) Current law: "The EU Digital Markets Act mandates that messaging services like iMessage are required to offer other companies some level of interoperability if they’re deemed to be big and important enough." [7] This law in Europe does exactly what you asked about, with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, forcing them to allow access from other clients. I don't know that anybody considers these as nationalized. Apple's iMessage is being reviewed, at this time it might not be big and important enough in Europe to be covered. Shared values, legal precendent, new laws and the courts are how we collectively make decisions in constitutional representative social democracies. In practicality no further justification is required. If enough people want interoperability they'll eventually get it, like what already is happening in Europe, and is being talked about in the U.S. This is how our governments are designed to operate. Politics ends up reflecting the culture, and we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist society. That's not what most people want. Do you have a position different than the above that you can speak to? Perhaps something that might persuade others to consider an alternate point of view? Exploring this topic in more detail I'm glad to learn that the system appears to be in headed in the direction I'd hoped for. I'm content. I'm happy to let you have the last word if this all seems like more vomit to you, maybe another pedantic zinger for old times sake ;-) [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X13505414 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X13505414 [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/doctorow-interoperability https://spectrum.ieee.org/doctorow-interoperability [3] https://www.eweek.com/development/google-vs-oracle-scotus-ruling-supports-interoperability-trend/ https://www.eweek.com/development/google-vs-oracle-scotus-ru... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACCESS_Act_of_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACCESS_Act_of_2021 [6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apples-refusal-to-allow-imessage-on-android-has-it-under-department-of-justice-investigation-as-the-ftc-watches/ar-AA1lUzpa https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apples-refusal-to-... [7] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861030/imessage-bing-european-union-commission-digital-markets-act-dma https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861030/imessage-bing-eur...

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)?

mikem170 3y ago
Your question: > What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service? Justifications, in order of specificity: 1) Political philosophy: "government action is occasionally the only feasible or cost-effective way of bringing about an outcome which each person sees as beneficial - or would see as beneficial under idealized epistemic conditions - but which they lack the power to bring about unilaterally" [1] 2) Better user experience: "When a sector is extremely concentrated, the people who are willing to trade the public good and foundational democratic values for incremental increases in their employer’s profitability get a hearing within the company and take over the company’s decision making. When a business doesn’t have to worry about losing its customers due to abusing them ... eventually becomes a serious hazard to human rights." [2] 3) U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "The U.S. Supreme Court - just like the EU - recognized that interoperability was a critical user benefit that assured innovation and lowered cost" [3] 4) Legal precedent: The 1996 Telecommunications Act "sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks" [4] 5) Proposed new law: "The U.S. ACCESS Act of 2021 mandates data portability from big tech companies." [5] This specific law didn't address messaging, but does address other services. Quite a few other anti-trust reforms have been implemented and are being discussed. 6) Department of Justice investigation: The DOJ is currently looking into "whether Apple is doing something it shouldn't be - blocking access to iMessage for reasons other than privacy and security." [6] 7) Current law: "The EU Digital Markets Act mandates that messaging services like iMessage are required to offer other companies some level of interoperability if they’re deemed to be big and important enough." [7] This law in Europe does exactly what you asked about, with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, forcing them to allow access from other clients. I don't know that anybody considers these as nationalized. Apple's iMessage is being reviewed, at this time it might not be big and important enough in Europe to be covered. Shared values, legal precendent, new laws and the courts are how we collectively make decisions in constitutional representative social democracies. In practicality no further justification is required. If enough people want interoperability they'll eventually get it, like what already is happening in Europe, and is being talked about in the U.S. This is how our governments are designed to operate. Politics ends up reflecting the culture, and we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist society. That's not what most people want. Do you have a position different than the above that you can speak to? Perhaps something that might persuade others to consider an alternate point of view? Exploring this topic in more detail I'm glad to learn that the system appears to be in headed in the direction I'd hoped for. I'm content. I'm happy to let you have the last word if this all seems like more vomit to you, maybe another pedantic zinger for old times sake ;-) [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X13505414 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X13505414 [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/doctorow-interoperability https://spectrum.ieee.org/doctorow-interoperability [3] https://www.eweek.com/development/google-vs-oracle-scotus-ruling-supports-interoperability-trend/ https://www.eweek.com/development/google-vs-oracle-scotus-ru... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACCESS_Act_of_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACCESS_Act_of_2021 [6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apples-refusal-to-allow-imessage-on-android-has-it-under-department-of-justice-investigation-as-the-ftc-watches/ar-AA1lUzpa https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apples-refusal-to-... [7] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861030/imessage-bing-european-union-commission-digital-markets-act-dma https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861030/imessage-bing-eur...