While I strongly oppose Apple's decision, I even more strongly oppose government involvement as a solution. The government should not be able to compel association, it is essential to maintain freedom of association.
Exactly. That's why the government should enforce my freedom to associate with who I want on my phone.
Non sequitur: My first VCR was a BetaMax. We got it on sale without knowing much about the technology. Once we had it a few days, I really wished it handled VHS tapes, as that's all the movie rental stores had. We returned it.
That has nothing to do with them going out of their way to make it impossible to sideload anything.
Apple preventing me from installing a social network by some group people don't like is akin to Ford not letting my car drive to a store owned by people they don't like. Do you think I should have to find a different car manufacturer to drive where I want?
You don't have much of an argument here. No one is forcing you to buy that.
You don't even have the argument that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone mart. There is a readily available alternative in Android. Android allows you to install whatever you want.
It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter.
So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies?
[0] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872
[1] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28145...
“Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders?
The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified.
> “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting.
> The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave.
_That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
> ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
You (What I quoted):
> There were no endless attacks on federal property...
You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to.
So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
We are living on different planets. This perspective being is being pushed solely by people who hate trump and his supporters. It’s clearly not true, and it blurs the lines around what happened. If it were true, there would be an actual civil war.
Claiming this only serves to increase the ever-widening divide in our country. There appear to have been thousand of people at the protest (I haven’t listened to any pundits yet, so unsure of the exact estimate), and a small handful participated in this disappointing display.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.
Besides the logistical hurdles, one is not a substitute for the other. The pros still outweigh the cons, but that doesn't mean I can't push for better policies to fix the things I don't like.
I'm not trying to force anyone to make software for my phone. I want Apple to let other people make software for my phone.
That involves forcing Apple to design their software to do what they don’t want it to do.
Why not just buy the product that does?
I know the answer to that, since you have given it earlier.
It’s because you want Apple’s nice products, and have chosen that over the desire for an open ecosystem.
Nobody is stopping you from having the freedom you want. In fact many companies provide it.
This has nothing to do with rights at all.
It’s just that Apple makes nicer things and you want to force them to meet your needs because the products that do aren’t as nice.
Could there possibly be anything more against the spirit of the Apple 1984 commercial than them kicking off a messaging system that lets people say whatever they want?
What's next, email? Are they going to ban text messages because people say no-no words on there?
In a way this is a form of death of net neutrality. What your ISP couldn’t do, Apple and Google happily will.
Section 230 on the other hand...
It's not the same, but it's the same ballpark.