[flagged]
I think cookie dialogs are the best example of malicious compliance in tech.
Instead of just a "Reject all non-essential cookies" button, corporations went the extra mile to instead have a "Manage preferences" button which opens some slow menu with like 70 separate checkboxes, all of which are ticked by default and so you have to go through all of them manually, which then makes like 90% of the users just cave in to the dark pattern and just click "Accept all".
No law can predict all of the ways someone will try to weasel around it, regardless of whether it's something like the example above, or a company trying to maintain a walled garden.
> As part of the new investigation, the commission is examining 0.50c charge, or “core technology fee”, Apple demands every time a developer’s app is installed on a phone.
That said, while this sounds a bit like the infamous Unity Runtime Fee, if done correctly, personally I wouldn't have as much of an issue with this as others might, if it's done in a way where it never will cause a developer to go in the red: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
That is not malicious compliance. That's outright non-compliance. Reject All must be as prominent as Accept All.
That's straight up non-compliance. The law literally says that refusal has to be as easy as accepting.
The law isn’t the only thing that upholds a cohesive society that is nice to live in. At the very least, culture plays its own part as well. There are probably many more things
If I only cared about being legal, I would behave very differently. Just think about how far a citizen could go if they would live in full malicious compliance. One would be a nightmare to others
I prefer a world where most people don't ride the edge of legality.
Another common outcome is complete apathy for the rules. ie: nothing seems legal, why bother trying?
While I wouldn't recommend you live that way, I also wouldn't call you a criminal.
Just an a*s.
Apple being able to do something undesirable, in the perspective in the intent of the law, is either a "loophole" in the law, or the law doesn't actually accomplish what it was made to. Both are problems with the law. This isn't an Apple thing as much as a "anyone who will benefit in complying minimally will comply minimally". Apple today, whomever else tomorrow.
Obviously you can't regulate every bit of behavior and this will always leave room for abusing corner cases. You have quiet hours in your neighborhood? I'll just make the maximum amount of noise every second it's allowed, forever. It's legal, it's not fine. So clearly GP's comment rubs people the wrong way enough to be flagged.
It's pretty clear from the term itself that malicious compliance is compliance or else it would have been called (malicious) noncompliance. This is what people think Apple is doing. What EU authorities believe is that Apple is not compliant with the law, perhaps for different reasons than people see as malicious compliance.
So the EU is bashing Apple for them not being compliant, while regular people are bashing Apple for the malicious compliance. The second one is perfectly fine to do even without a judge's verdict.
Because funnily enough, the comment itself is kind of malicious compliance.
It has the form of polite debate, but it also feigns to not understand the parent (bad faith is a pretty simple/obvious concept and I'm sure the author gets it), which ruins the discussion. So yes, it appears reasonable that it is flagged.
This leaves it up for debate in courts to settle those shortcomings, but it wouldn't be surprising if they found they were compliant and that the rules need adjustments.