4 ms·

> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are When the EU attempts to legislate crypto backdoors, do you plan to say "If Signal ha

> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are When the EU attempts to legislate crypto backdoors, do you plan to say "If Signal had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are"?

saubeidl 1y ago
That is a bad-faith argument and a false equivalency I will not engage in, lest I be warned by the mods for falling for obvious bait again.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  It is an argument made in good faith. Companies and individuals should fight against bad laws. And a press campaign is a legitimate, and sometimes effective, tactic for doing so. Different people may disagree about which laws are good or bad; I fully expect, for instance, that more people support the DMA than would support crypto backdoors. But it seems shortsighted to suggest that those who think a law is wrong should simply accept it anyway, rather than fight tooth and nail against it.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    In that case, I would recommend you read the article. It's not just fighting a bad law. It's fighting the very foundation the EU is built on and that has guaranteed peace in Western Europe since the end of WW2. Apple might not get this, because they don't have an understanding of European history. But that lack of understanding is exactly why they keep getting their nose bloodied in Europe.
  - a2128 1y ago
    They're happy to be quiet and comply with Chinese laws even if they're wrong[0]. How is a requirement to stop giving your own products an unfair competitive advantage a bad law? It's only bad when you see it from the perspective that you'll lose a lot of money. https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-minutes-china/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-mi...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - pyrale 1y ago
    > It is an argument made in good faith. Then I suggest you rework your "good-faith" discussion methods. You're answering a poster who explained how companies are onboarded to new regulation with a gotcha question about a law that isn't voted yet.
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago
      I'm answering someone who said that the response to being "onboarded to new regulation" should be to "face reality", rather than fight it and try to stop it. Whatever level of tooth-and-nail fighting you'd expect someone to do in response to a law you do think is wrong, it's reasonable think someone would wish to do in response to a law they think is wrong.
      - pyrale 1y ago
        You're missing the point. A law in the process of being voted is up for discussion and political involvement. Once the law has been voted, you can still complain about it, but it is not wise to use the talks given to you by the regulator in order to help you adapt to new regulation as a soapbox for your complaints. That will burn goodwill with the regulator and make them discard any legitimate feedback you might have. Or, in short, lobbying parliament is fine, trying to strong-arm regulatory bodies is not.
- madeofpalk 1y ago
  Why is it a false equivalency, apart from "i agree with one law but not the other"?
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    One is a law. The other is a doomed attempt at a law by a fraction of extremists - they have tried and failed to do this many a time and it does not deserve to be taken seriously.

saubeidl 1y ago

That is a bad-faith argument and a false equivalency I will not engage in, lest I be warned by the mods for falling for obvious bait again.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
It is an argument made in good faith. Companies and individuals should fight against bad laws. And a press campaign is a legitimate, and sometimes effective, tactic for doing so. Different people may disagree about which laws are good or bad; I fully expect, for instance, that more people support the DMA than would support crypto backdoors. But it seems shortsighted to suggest that those who think a law is wrong should simply accept it anyway, rather than fight tooth and nail against it.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  In that case, I would recommend you read the article. It's not just fighting a bad law. It's fighting the very foundation the EU is built on and that has guaranteed peace in Western Europe since the end of WW2. Apple might not get this, because they don't have an understanding of European history. But that lack of understanding is exactly why they keep getting their nose bloodied in Europe.
- a2128 1y ago
  They're happy to be quiet and comply with Chinese laws even if they're wrong[0]. How is a requirement to stop giving your own products an unfair competitive advantage a bad law? It's only bad when you see it from the perspective that you'll lose a lot of money. https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-minutes-china/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-mi...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pyrale 1y ago
  > It is an argument made in good faith. Then I suggest you rework your "good-faith" discussion methods. You're answering a poster who explained how companies are onboarded to new regulation with a gotcha question about a law that isn't voted yet.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    I'm answering someone who said that the response to being "onboarded to new regulation" should be to "face reality", rather than fight it and try to stop it. Whatever level of tooth-and-nail fighting you'd expect someone to do in response to a law you do think is wrong, it's reasonable think someone would wish to do in response to a law they think is wrong.
    - pyrale 1y ago
      You're missing the point. A law in the process of being voted is up for discussion and political involvement. Once the law has been voted, you can still complain about it, but it is not wise to use the talks given to you by the regulator in order to help you adapt to new regulation as a soapbox for your complaints. That will burn goodwill with the regulator and make them discard any legitimate feedback you might have. Or, in short, lobbying parliament is fine, trying to strong-arm regulatory bodies is not.
madeofpalk 1y ago
Why is it a false equivalency, apart from "i agree with one law but not the other"?
- saubeidl 1y ago
  One is a law. The other is a doomed attempt at a law by a fraction of extremists - they have tried and failed to do this many a time and it does not deserve to be taken seriously.