3 ms·

I don't see why we should assume that apple must open iMessage users to others out of pure, market-based economic incentive, or even out of the goodness of thei

• junofan 3y ago
  Typically we’d need a compelling state interest before we violate people’s rights, no? I mean there’s plenty of authoritarian countries out there to move to if you’d like—we don’t need to become one of them.
  • ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    You're using the term "people" loosely here (to refer to a single corporation), and there's no "right to run a dominant and deceptive messaging network while allowing no interoperability", but in any case, we'd only need whatever We The People (the actual people, not 1 singular corporate "person" out of hundreds of millions of actual people) decide we need, regardless of what Apple Incorporated, the single "legal person", wants. I don't see how that's authoritarian, though that's an easy baseless attack to lob by those who disagree with We The People. There are plenty of countries out there that preference corporations over people (I think that's the technical definition of a fascist government). One is free to move there, if they find democratic rule so distasteful. Personally, I prefer majority rule rule to minority rule, given a choice between the two, and likewise prefer rule by the people to rule by a minority of corporate "persons".