4 ms·

All of us, individually, are just single people. We don't have a lot of money. We don't have a lot of clout. Apple is very big. It has a lot of people, and a l

by djur 13y ago

All of us, individually, are just single people. We don't have a lot of money. We don't have a lot of clout. Apple is very big. It has a lot of people, and a lot of money, and a lot of clout. Government is the countervailing force that, collectively, weak citizens can use to push back against private power. The word isn't "nanny", it's "guardian". It's "advocate".

baddox 13y ago
There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in your comment. Both Apple and government are simply a bunch of individuals. The difference is which group contains individuals that will use violence against people to get its way regardless of the people's consent.
- djur 13y ago
  The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.
  - baddox 13y ago
    And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.
    - djur 13y ago
      The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
      - dreamdu5t 13y ago
        Elections aren't an election of anyone's consent to be governed.
        claudius 13y ago
        You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.
        randunel 13y ago
        You are not free to leave the country, unless you are willing to spend your time in between borders. Many people are not as privileged as you are, for example I need a visa to go anywhere in the world. And the elections may seem like freedom, but usually you have to choose between multiple sides of the same evil :P </rant>
        claudius 13y ago
        You are usually free to leave your country (the GDR likely being one of the few exceptions…), but other societies obviously have the right to reject you entry into their countries. And if you don’t like the choices you have at your elections, nominate yourself.
        CamperBob2 13y ago
        Ah, yes, the old Don't want to be nannied from cradle to grave? Well, here's your ticket to Somalia! routine. One of my all-time favorite thought-stopping arguments.
  - dreamdu5t 13y ago
    Nobody alive today has ever consented to government. There is no negotiation. "Consent of the governed" is sophistry.
    - djur 13y ago
      The people have the right to vote in whatever government they want. If that right is abridged or taken away, they can kill the people doing that until the right is restored. That is the consent of the governed.
      - baddox 13y ago
        No, that's still just consent of those who consent.
    - dmoo 13y ago
      From time to time people withdraw that consent, like in the Ukraine at the moment.
      - baddox 13y ago
        And yet, they're still governed, and you can bet they will still be governed after this struggle is over.
jasonlotito 13y ago
Just to be clear, you want the government to protect you from games that are really, 100% free, but provide IAP for additional things that might enhance your enjoyment of the free game. Seriously, take some responsibility.
- djur 13y ago
  I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all. I don't use mobile phone apps, so I don't know much about that market. If products are being sold deceptively, there's a public interest in preventing that. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all. So? That's part of the conversation? Either join in or leave. > If products are being sold deceptively They aren't. They are free. Money doesn't exchange hands. You are getting a game you can play for free.
    - djur 13y ago
      You said "[j]ust to be clear, you want the government to protect you". I clarified your misconception. The hostile attitude is unwarranted. Alternatively: Me leave? After you, pal. As to your second point: The product being sold in question is the in-app purchase, not the original app. The app, however, could be part of a deceptive marketing practice. Not being a citizen of a EU member state nor an expert in its legal system, I am content to leave this decision up to its regulatory apparatus. If the citizens of any EU member country are dissatisfied, they can elect governments that will leave the union, or elect Members of European Parliament that will change the rules.

by djur 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in your comment. Both Apple and government are simply a bunch of individuals. The difference is which group contains individuals that will use violence against people to get its way regardless of the people's consent.

djur 13y ago
The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.
- baddox 13y ago
  And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.
  - djur 13y ago
    The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
    - dreamdu5t 13y ago
      Elections aren't an election of anyone's consent to be governed.
      - claudius 13y ago
        You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.
        randunel 13y ago
        You are not free to leave the country, unless you are willing to spend your time in between borders. Many people are not as privileged as you are, for example I need a visa to go anywhere in the world. And the elections may seem like freedom, but usually you have to choose between multiple sides of the same evil :P </rant>
        claudius 13y ago
        You are usually free to leave your country (the GDR likely being one of the few exceptions…), but other societies obviously have the right to reject you entry into their countries. And if you don’t like the choices you have at your elections, nominate yourself.
        CamperBob2 13y ago
        Ah, yes, the old Don't want to be nannied from cradle to grave? Well, here's your ticket to Somalia! routine. One of my all-time favorite thought-stopping arguments.
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  Nobody alive today has ever consented to government. There is no negotiation. "Consent of the governed" is sophistry.
  - djur 13y ago
    The people have the right to vote in whatever government they want. If that right is abridged or taken away, they can kill the people doing that until the right is restored. That is the consent of the governed.
    - baddox 13y ago
      No, that's still just consent of those who consent.
  - dmoo 13y ago
    From time to time people withdraw that consent, like in the Ukraine at the moment.
    - baddox 13y ago
      And yet, they're still governed, and you can bet they will still be governed after this struggle is over.

jasonlotito 13y ago

Just to be clear, you want the government to protect you from games that are really, 100% free, but provide IAP for additional things that might enhance your enjoyment of the free game. Seriously, take some responsibility.

djur 13y ago
I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all. I don't use mobile phone apps, so I don't know much about that market. If products are being sold deceptively, there's a public interest in preventing that. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all. So? That's part of the conversation? Either join in or leave. > If products are being sold deceptively They aren't. They are free. Money doesn't exchange hands. You are getting a game you can play for free.
  - djur 13y ago
    You said "[j]ust to be clear, you want the government to protect you". I clarified your misconception. The hostile attitude is unwarranted. Alternatively: Me leave? After you, pal. As to your second point: The product being sold in question is the in-app purchase, not the original app. The app, however, could be part of a deceptive marketing practice. Not being a citizen of a EU member state nor an expert in its legal system, I am content to leave this decision up to its regulatory apparatus. If the citizens of any EU member country are dissatisfied, they can elect governments that will leave the union, or elect Members of European Parliament that will change the rules.