5 ms·

Your question: > What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service?

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
No need for a zinger, every single one of your examples presumes falsely that iMessage provides a unique service that isn’t available elsewhere, a fact you yourself have already admitted isn’t true. Further, you seem to believe iMessage itself is of some critical value to society such that the absence of its availability to others is of sufficient pain so as to justify the violation of the concept of ownership, but you do this without justification. What it seems to boil down to is entitlement. You feel entitled to this product because it’s common. That’s a wild violation of the social contract and demonstrates a thoroughly unconsidered approach to how society handles the reward of novel ideas and if normalized would utterly kill innovation and ruin the very things you seem to care about. So you’re faced with a choice; let Apple continue to control iMessage, or give up on the idea of rewarding innovation. You don’t get both, despite your apparent belief that you are entitled to the works of others.
- mikem170 3y ago
  Funny that back in the day Apple reverse-engineered MS office formats to make Mac software that could open Microsoft documents [1]. Sounds like you and them want to prevent anyone from doing what they did when they were a smaller growing company. Kind of ironic, huh? > your examples presumes falsely that iMessage provides a unique service You know that anti-trust laws apply to all kinds of anti-competitve situations and not just monopolies on a unique good, right? Things like building walled gardens and buying up the competition can fall into this category. > violation of the concept of ownership There's nothing sacred about current ideas of ownership. They changes over time. It used to be that peasants and women and children were property and kings owned all the land. Intellectual property rights have changed. We compromise ownership rights with things like imminent domain, property taxes, zoning and libraries. Why do you assume that a messaging protocol should be owned the same way as other property? > but you do this without justification The root of this issue is that people are unsettled with the direction big tech has taken, concentrated in so few companies, they way they embrace and extend, weaponize the legal system, lobby politicians, profit off people's privacy, attention and well being, etc. Governments are taking action because this is what people want. That's how the world works. Do you assume that people are supposed to adhere to your principals when they are unhappy with what big tech is doing? This is all new, why would you assume that the rules shouldn't be adjusted for new situations? > You feel entitled to this product because it’s common This isn't just me and this isn't just this product. It's much bigger than that. People are unhappy with the direction big tech is going. In general they are exploiting old rules with new technology. You're not providing any answers here. > violation of the social contract The social contract is not guaranteed to stay the same for you or anyone else. It evolves when there are significant changes. Things like the bubonic plague, the printing press, the new world, the industrial revolution, large scale farming and container ships and other things all drove significant societal changes, some good and some not so good. The amount and pace of change due to the internet and mobile computing is unprecedented. Stuff like this prompts changes to the social contract, in an attempt to fix problems. The social contract is always changing, every generation there are tweaks. The people who wanted to keep slavery legal said the same thing you're saying - it's not fair to violate the social contract. Well sometimes that's the right thing to do. > if normalized would utterly kill innovation Wouldn't open protocols tend to encourage innovation, like what happened with the internet and open source software? Instead of these companies milking profits for years because of network effects and their ability to lock out the competition wouldn't it be better if switching costs were lowered? Wouldn't that create a lot of possibilities for alternatives, and lower prices, and a better balance between these big companies and the rest of society? That's what people want. Innovation is not Apple reverse-engineering MS Office formats then later using the legal system to stop others from doing the same thing. What is it that you are afraid of? Do you think these big companies can't compete if they had to open some of their protocols? Do you ever worry that a few big tech companies have carved up the world and will stifle anything or anyone that gets in the way of their profits? [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interopera...

redcobra762 3y ago

No need for a zinger, every single one of your examples presumes falsely that iMessage provides a unique service that isn’t available elsewhere, a fact you yourself have already admitted isn’t true. Further, you seem to believe iMessage itself is of some critical value to society such that the absence of its availability to others is of sufficient pain so as to justify the violation of the concept of ownership, but you do this without justification. What it seems to boil down to is entitlement. You feel entitled to this product because it’s common. That’s a wild violation of the social contract and demonstrates a thoroughly unconsidered approach to how society handles the reward of novel ideas and if normalized would utterly kill innovation and ruin the very things you seem to care about. So you’re faced with a choice; let Apple continue to control iMessage, or give up on the idea of rewarding innovation. You don’t get both, despite your apparent belief that you are entitled to the works of others.

mikem170 3y ago
Funny that back in the day Apple reverse-engineered MS office formats to make Mac software that could open Microsoft documents [1]. Sounds like you and them want to prevent anyone from doing what they did when they were a smaller growing company. Kind of ironic, huh? > your examples presumes falsely that iMessage provides a unique service You know that anti-trust laws apply to all kinds of anti-competitve situations and not just monopolies on a unique good, right? Things like building walled gardens and buying up the competition can fall into this category. > violation of the concept of ownership There's nothing sacred about current ideas of ownership. They changes over time. It used to be that peasants and women and children were property and kings owned all the land. Intellectual property rights have changed. We compromise ownership rights with things like imminent domain, property taxes, zoning and libraries. Why do you assume that a messaging protocol should be owned the same way as other property? > but you do this without justification The root of this issue is that people are unsettled with the direction big tech has taken, concentrated in so few companies, they way they embrace and extend, weaponize the legal system, lobby politicians, profit off people's privacy, attention and well being, etc. Governments are taking action because this is what people want. That's how the world works. Do you assume that people are supposed to adhere to your principals when they are unhappy with what big tech is doing? This is all new, why would you assume that the rules shouldn't be adjusted for new situations? > You feel entitled to this product because it’s common This isn't just me and this isn't just this product. It's much bigger than that. People are unhappy with the direction big tech is going. In general they are exploiting old rules with new technology. You're not providing any answers here. > violation of the social contract The social contract is not guaranteed to stay the same for you or anyone else. It evolves when there are significant changes. Things like the bubonic plague, the printing press, the new world, the industrial revolution, large scale farming and container ships and other things all drove significant societal changes, some good and some not so good. The amount and pace of change due to the internet and mobile computing is unprecedented. Stuff like this prompts changes to the social contract, in an attempt to fix problems. The social contract is always changing, every generation there are tweaks. The people who wanted to keep slavery legal said the same thing you're saying - it's not fair to violate the social contract. Well sometimes that's the right thing to do. > if normalized would utterly kill innovation Wouldn't open protocols tend to encourage innovation, like what happened with the internet and open source software? Instead of these companies milking profits for years because of network effects and their ability to lock out the competition wouldn't it be better if switching costs were lowered? Wouldn't that create a lot of possibilities for alternatives, and lower prices, and a better balance between these big companies and the rest of society? That's what people want. Innovation is not Apple reverse-engineering MS Office formats then later using the legal system to stop others from doing the same thing. What is it that you are afraid of? Do you think these big companies can't compete if they had to open some of their protocols? Do you ever worry that a few big tech companies have carved up the world and will stifle anything or anyone that gets in the way of their profits? [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interopera...