Apple and Google's Mobile 'Duopoly' Targeted by UK Regulators

[Unregistered 4U]

Where was the ARM architecture developed that Apply designed its chips from? Was it not UK?

Yes, so you’re saying that the region that brought us ARM looked at the situation on the ground today and said, “Oh, we can’t do that, we simply don’t have the capability to excel in that way anymore. Let’s just depend on tech companies that aren’t in the region instead of reigniting the innovations that brought the WORLD ARM.”

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Honestly I don’t care.

You don’t have to run an app business. If the financials don’t make sense or you feel the risk is tangible, don’t start one. If you do it and moan about the platform cut to try and reduce it, that’s a crappy business plan or shows dubious business savvy. Or the standard MBA tactic of worrying about margins later or being big enough to think you can sway influence.

All these facts were made available at the time of business conception.

Fundamentally if this is a problem, vote with your feet. Go write a SaaS where you have billing control and can mug your customers off on your own terms? If it’s a problem don’t portalise yourself through someone else’s product.

True, no one has forced anyone developers into running an app business that depends on someone else’s hardware. Even Apple, no one forced them to work with Motorola on the ROKR, they did because someone in the company thought it was the right way to go. It wasn’t, for many reasons.

I’m also of a firm opinion that if a person running a business can’t profit from a 70% cut while having access to over a BILLION customers, all that have their credit card details in the system and have shown a willingness to buy? The problem is not with the App Store, the commissions, or anything of the sort.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Those making extraordinary claims need to have evidence to back it up. Saying “this might be happening” with no proof (or even a credible accusation of wrongdoing) would be a witch hunt.

And, to be clear, it’s not what the UK is doing here. The UK is essentially saying “the EU got to regulate, so we want to too” without considering whether it’s smart, a good idea, or will achieve what they want to achieve. It’s “I’m a regulator, I want to regulate, those guys are regulating, so I’m going to regulate too.”

As someone who has spent over 20 years in and around government, it’s something I’m pretty familiar with. But it usually doesn’t lead to good outcomes, no matter how well-intentioned the regulations are. And I’d argue the DMA wasn’t well intentioned, so it won’t lead to a good outcome here.

I hear what you are saying but this has major ramifications for the entire tech industry. It is not fair to try and make the only choices be a smoking gun or a witch hunt. While I am sure you have seen a lot of things go wrong, I am also sure you saw things go right.

To my knowledge, all previous times this was looked into, it was the government looking at a single company. I completely disagree with this. Apple and Google should not be penalized for being successful. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't, together, manipulating the market. So while the other cases I would say are much more of a witch hunt, especially those surrounding the mobile platform space, this is a different case.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What we’ve also seen from Android:
Even if other stores and/or sideloading exist, developers aren’t leaving the Play Store.

Which is why the “choice of a walled garden” is not taken away from consumers when Apple is obliged to “open up” to allow for such alternative means of installing applications.

This is the fatal flaw in all the FUD about what will happen if Apple enables any changes/options.

 

[surferfb]

This is the fatal flaw in all the FUD about what will happen if Apple enables any changes/options.

I disagree.

Take Meta, for example. Opening up their own store on Android right now doesn't get them anything they don't already have. Android has significantly fewer privacy protections than iOS does. So why spend the significant resources to do build your own store? There's no reason to. But, force iOS open, and all of a sudden there's a pretty good reason to build your own store: you don't have to follow Apple's privacy rules anymore. Track away!

I agree not many will leave. But those that do will be large companies that are just freeloading, or have nefarious reasons for doing so. We shouldn't reward that when there is an option for users who care about open ecosystems.

The FUD here is that regulators are arguing "we need other stores so prices will go down" completely ignoring the fact that in the open alternative, prices have only gone down in response to Apple's changes in the App Store, not competition with other stores inside the ecosystem. Amazon, Samsung, etc. all have app stores on Android, but the Play Store's prices haven't gone down. Which completely destroys 1) the justification for the regulation and 2) the idea that the App Store and the Play Store don't compete. There is plenty of competition in the market, and consumers deserve the choice of a closed ecosystem.

It's a known, indisputable fact that Android has a significantly worse malware problem than iOS because of sideloading an alternative app stores. Why do you think that will be different if Apple is forced to open up?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Or how about this: you can opt for Android

As you quoted yourself: Google can - and arguably slowly are - taking it away.
More importantly, there’s no obligation to keep it open.

Well, now there somewhat is, in some jurisdictions - and Apple is allowed (but also obliged) to play on a level playing field in competing with Google/Android.

but you’re taking away choice from consumers because you think you shouldn’t have to compromise

I’ve been compromising “all my life” in having to download everything from Apple - and being unable to install apps in other ways.

What I am saying is that the proposal we are discussing is wrongheaded, won't achieve what regulators claim, and will make the problem they purport to solve worse; while actively harming consumers and taking away choice.

I agree to some extent.

👉 It would be better if legislation and antitrust regulation forced Apple and Google - i.e. gatekeepers in operating systems - to divest from their application software store operations.

Otherwise, as a less invasive measure:

👉 Oblige companies with dominant market position to operate their applications on a non-discriminating and “most favoured customer” clause.

The Yardstick for that being very, very simple:

• Same contract terms must apply to in-app purchases of digital books as do to purchases of printed books - or any other in-app purchase.
• Same contract terms must apply to apps of similar customer size, download volume/traffic, notification service use.

I’d have no problem in agreeing that Apple may charge any fees/commissions they want under these circumstances.
I’d not even insist on requiring them to “open up” iOS for alternative stores or app installation (“sideloading”).

That would allow for a fair and level competitive playing field for digital apps and services.

I know it's fashionable on MacRumors to assume that Apple is greedy greedy greedy and dastardly Tim Cook is only doing this only for the bottom line, but there are actual, real benefits to having the one store model

Of course.

We just need to make sure that the operators of such stores have competitive prices/terms and an interest to pass on economies of scale to heir customers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Oddly enough, yes. Majorly profitable companies look like potential 'cash cows' at a time when cash-strapped governments with deficits and debts, ever looking for targets for crusades to make politicians look good, could use a good villain to milk.

There are companies that are even worse off:
Many of the “middle-market” that are caught between gatekeepers (“Big Tech”) essentially forcing them to use them as a middleman on the one side - abd governments treating them as cash cows with ever increasing taxes and regulation.

But I have a question; Android users can still side-load, right? Even if Google tightens down requirements for Google Play, Android users can still download Android app.s from elsewhere

Well, in Europe they can - cause the law requires them to allow that.
But there are limit on what users can reasonably be expected to jump through.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But, force iOS open, and all of a sudden there's a pretty good reason to build your own store: you don't have to follow Apple's privacy rules anymore. Track away!

There are few restrictions on user tracking in apps on Apple’s store - if only you disclose that you do it,

And even less restrictions on the tracking Apple is employing themselves.
Cause they’re operating a big ad network themselves.

One increasingly gets the impression that Apple is weaponising their restrictions on user tracking fot the benefit of their own ad infrastructure.

 

[surferfb]

As you quoted yourself: Google can - and arguably slowly are - taking it away.
More importantly, there’s no obligation to keep it open.

If and when Google takes away their open ecosystem, pass a law. But both options should be allowed to exist in the meantime.

Well, now there somewhat is, in sone jurisdictions - and Apple is allowed (but also obliged) to play on a level playing field in competing with Google/Android.

They were already playing on a level playing field. The government is tipping the scales of the playing field for their preferred outcome and declaring "ALL MUST HAVE THE SAME BUSINESS MODEL". CLOSED IS NOT ALLOWED. LESS CHOICE IS MORE CHOICE." Learning nothing from history and interfering in a market they clearly don't understand and actively harming millions of their citizens in the process in some sort of ideological zealotry that big companies shouldn't have to pay for use of others' property.

You freely admit isn't going to lower prices or result in many companies leaving the App Store. All it's going to do is increase malware and scams for the vast majority of Apple's customers. Your preference to not use Android doesn't outweigh those customers' security or Apple's rights as a platform owner.

I’ve been compromising “all my life” in having to download everything from Apple - and being unable to install apps in other ways.

EXACTLY! Nothing has changed. You knew your options, and Apple was the best of those for you. You're selfishly cheering on the government taking away preferences from millions because you don't think you should have to compromise anymore.

I agree to some extent.

👉 It would be better if legislation and antitrust regulation forced Apple and Google - i.e. gatekeepers in operating systems - to divest from their application software store operations.

Otherwise, as a less invasive measure:

👉 Oblige companies with dominant market position to operate their applications on a non-discriminating and “most favoured customer” clause.

The Yardstick for that being very, very simple:

• Same contract terms must apply to in-app purchases of digital books as do to purchases of printed books - or any other in-app purchase.
• Same contract terms must apply to apps of similar customer size, download volume/traffic, notification service use.

I’d have no problem in agreeing that Apple may charge any fees/commissions they want under these circumstances.
I’d not even insist on requiring them to “open up” iOS for alternative stores or app installation (“sideloading”).

👉 That would allow for a fair and level competitive playing field for digital apps and services.

There are completely valid reasons for treating physical and digital goods differently. and on top of that, Apple should be allowed to charge for use of its property how it sees fit without very good reason. "I don't want to use Android" is not a very good reason. Neither is "I deserve access to someone else's property and customers."

There are few restrictions on user tracking in apps on Apple’s store - if only you disclose that you do it,

And even less restrictions on the tracking Apple is employing themselves.
Cause they’re operating a big ad network themselves.

One increasingly gets the impression that Apple is weaponising their restrictions on user tracking fot the benefit of their own ad infrastructure.

If you're intent on misconstruing the situation, sure. But back in the reality-based community, that's a laughable argument.

Apple is subject to ATT and Privacy Nutrition Labels just like everyone else. Apple does not track user across third-party apps or websites. It does not share user-level data with advertisers, it uses on-device processing to assign ad segments, and provides a really easy way to opt out.

Apple’s ads are limited to a small number of first-party applications: the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks. There’s no pervasive Apple ad network injecting ads across the web or third-party apps. Not anywhere close to the same.

 

[Shirasaki]

To be clear, I am not saying tech shouldn't be regulated at all. What I am saying is that the proposal we are discussing is wrongheaded, won't achieve what regulators claim, and will make the problem they purport to solve worse; while actively harming consumers and taking away choice.

Just for example: say Meta decides it doesn't like the privacy rules on iOS, right now their choice is "no native app for iOS" or "follow the rules." So they follow the rules. Apple's one-store model has protected Apple's users' privacy. If Meta is suddenly allowed to open their own store, what's to stop them removing Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. from the App Store so they can further track their users? Do we think most "normal" users will stop and say "hmmm, you know what, after weighing the pros and cons, I'm not going to use Meta's products" or are they just going to install the Meta App Store? Meta is big enough to force this change through.

Only the largest, most well known companies will be able to pull that off. So in the end, the rich like Epic and Spotify get richer (we don't have to pay for the property we use), normal developers will need to stay in the App Store because that's where the users are, and all the regulators have done is allowed big companies to freeload off of Apple's hard work and harmed the end users they are trying to protect.

I know it's fashionable on MacRumors to assume that Apple is greedy greedy greedy and dastardly Tim Cook is only doing this only for the bottom line, but there are actual, real benefits to having the one store model. And regulators are rushing to throw that all out without any consideration whatsoever.

Well, at least EU takes the bite to open iOS walled garden within EU’s geographical boundaries. So opened world inside a walled garden and we will see how well things go there at the very least. And of course in US Apple will never be asked to open their system like what EU did.

With that being said, I’d prefer counting whatever EU and UK is trying to do is attempting to regulate the big tech companies. Meta also included and I think they as a social media company should be regulated even more than Apple but I fail to see that happening. In the end, it’s all a matter of trial and error in some way. And I think that’s at least part of the world trying to make tech giants be more responsible and take some care of the society. While opening Apple up may not be the way to do it, there will be other ways.

 

[drrich2]

👉 It would be better if legislation and antitrust regulation forced Apple and Google - i.e. gatekeepers in operating systems - to divest from their application software store operations.

I disagree and that's a dubious assertion. Even large, powerful companies in the moment need diversification to survive longterm (hence we don't hear much these days about Blackberry (once nicknamed the 'Crackberry'), Netscape (Navigator web browser), Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, MySpace, etc... And ownership of different segments can contribute to seamless integration.

It would be like arguing Walmart's efficient supply chain gives it an advantage over small rivals, so forbid it to operate a supply chain...which would run up costs then passed onto us.

Dictating that a company can't be highly successful in too many markets (e.g.: if you're the big leader in Search, you can't have the dominant web browser, if you're a smart phone OS leader you're not allowed to have an app. store) sounds far and away like government overreach.

But there are limit on what users can reasonably be expected to jump through.

What are the hoops now? If someone wants to grab, say, a printer driver for Android off Brother's site, how hard is that to do?

And of course in US Apple will never be asked to open their system like what EU did.

The government does not 'ask,' it coerces.

Meta also included and I think they as a social media company should be regulated even more than Apple but I fail to see that happening.

How and how far does that go? If the objection is social media misuse by minors, what about McDonald's 'happy meals?' A lot of 'ultraprocessed' food could be construed as addictive. Any company strives to make their product appeal to their target audiences.

And I think that’s at least part of the world trying to make tech giants be more responsible and take some care of the society.

'Take some care of the society.' What specifically do they owe it? I'm not talking about basic adherence to common laws (e.g.: no dumping industrial toxic waste in our drinking water). They offer a product, consumers choose whether to buy it. What more are they 'responsible' for? And again, how far does that go?

 

[AppliedMicro]

You freely admit isn't going to lower prices

Considering I have purchased software licenses at lower prices than Apple’s App Store - and through intermediaries that charge less commission, I don’t agree.

If anything, developers keeping a bigger share of the “retail” price is good, as it enables them to invest in their products. And competitive pressure - the one that the App and Play Store so severely lack - will keep the pressure on them to offer them at competitive prices.

You're selfishly cheering on the government taking away preferences from millions because you don't think you should have to compromise anymore.

No - I’m cheering on them for limiting Apple’s and Google’s ability to take away preference from millions of people and businesses.

LESS CHOICE IS MORE CHOICE.

More options to obtain apps and purchase is more choices.
Less choice - as required by Apple where they’re unregulated - is not.

Governments are enabling many choices for many consumers.
Apple is only taking them away and withholding them.

Apple was the best of those for you

It was the least worst choice.
I disagree that my choice of operating system should dictate what applications I can get and install.

Neither should the purchase of a car dictate the (tolled?) roads that the manufacturer allows me to drive it on.

There are completely valid reasons for treating physical and digital goods differently

There are not. You pay, for instance, for a musical recording that you want to enjoy.
Or the text you want to read.The only “valid” reason for treating them differently is when you want to impose charges/taxes/commission on them.

Apple is subject to ATT and Privacy Nutrition Labels just like everyone else

They aren’t:

Bundeskartellamt hat Bedenken gegen die Ausgestaltung des App Tracking Transparency Frameworks von Apple (ATTF)

www.bundeskartellamt.de

 

[surferfb]

Considering I have purchased software licenses at lower prices than Apple’s App Store - and through intermediaries that charge less commission, I don’t agree.

If anything, developers keeping a bigger share of the “retail” price is good, as it enables them to invest in their products. And competitive pressure - the one that the App and Play Store so severely lack - will keep the pressure on them to offer them at competitive prices.

Why haven't the Play Store's prices lowered given their open ecosystem then? Please explain it to me.

No - I’m cheering on them for limiting Apple’s and Google’s ability to take away preference from millions of people and businesses.

Google exists and is open. That preference exists and is not under threat.

More options to obtain apps and purchase is more choices.
Less choice - as required by Apple where they’re unregulated - is not.

Again Google exists and is open, I'm sorry that is terrible for your argument, but it's the truth. You're taking away choice from those who want a platform where all apps can be acquired from one App Store, with the platform owner performing safety and security checks, handling payments, etc. because you can't be bothered to use Android. You are not entitled to have your cake and eat it too.

Governments are enabling many choices for many consumers.
Apple is only taking them away and withholding them.

No, the EU (and now the UK is proposing to) taking choice away because they are ideologically opposed to closed ecosystems. Actively making millions of users less safe and less secure because they think they know better than Apple, its customers, and the free market. The hubris is mind boggling.

It was the least worst choice.
I disagree that my choice of operating system should dictate what applications I can get and install.

Again, you're not entitled get to have your cake and eat it too, especially when it tramples others' rights and there is a perfectly valid option that gives you what you want.

Neither should the purchase of a car dictate the (tolled?) roads that the manufacturer allows me to drive it on.


There are not. You pay, for instance, for a musical recording that you want to enjoy.
Or the text you want to read.The only “valid” reason for treating them differently is when you want to impose charges/taxes/commission on them.

There are. Just as one example, digital products and services use Apple's APIs and code to function. Physical products and services don't. The digital music is almost certainly going to be enjoyed on an iPhone, and use Apple's property. The physical CD won't.

And again, it doesn't matter (or at least shouldn't). Apple should be able to charge what it wants to charge, however it wants to charge, without government intervention, unless there is a really good reason. And again "I don't want to use Android" isn't a good reason. No one is forced to use or develop for Apple. If consumers and developers don't like it, they will go elsewhere.

They aren’t:

Bundeskartellamt hat Bedenken gegen die Ausgestaltung des App Tracking Transparency Frameworks von Apple (ATTF)

www.bundeskartellamt.de

The Germans are wrong, once again showing Europeans regulators don't understand what they do or how technology works, and aren't qualified to work in an Apple Store, let alone decide how the OS works. ATT doesn't apply to Apple because THEY DON'T TRACK ACROSS THIRD PARTY APPS AND WEBSITES. If they did, it would apply. That's like saying "Apple's prohibition on nudity in Apps is anticompetitive because it doesn't apply to Apple Apps" when none of Apple's Apps contain nudity.

 

[Shirasaki]

How and how far does that go? If the objection is social media misuse by minors, what about McDonald's 'happy meals?' A lot of 'ultraprocessed' food could be construed as addictive. Any company strives to make their product appeal to their target audiences.

Sure, strive to make their products addictive to their target audience and let more people gain weight to an unhealthy level. But I guess lots of people love fast food and don’t care about being obese.

'Take some care of the society.' What specifically do they owe it? I'm not talking about basic adherence to common laws (e.g.: no dumping industrial toxic waste in our drinking water). They offer a product, consumers choose whether to buy it. What more are they 'responsible' for? And again, how far does that go?

It doesn’t need to be very far. Just don’t produce foods that customers get addicted to. Oh and how about producing some truly healthy version of it by not adding so much oil into the processing? They are certainly contributing to America’s terminal obesity problem.

 

[drrich2]

Sure, strive to make their products addictive to their target audience and let more people gain weight to an unhealthy level. But I guess lots of people love fast food and don’t care about being obese.

They care, but not enough to make the full shift required to healthy weight. And this is a key philosophical difference where American individualism tends to rise up; in such situations, whose place is it to act (or not)? Some of us believe it's the individual's place to decide, not the government's place to 'protect him from himself' by outlawing McDonalds, for example.

After all, nobody is forced to eat at McDonalds.

It doesn’t need to be very far. Just don’t produce foods that customers get addicted to.

But what is addiction in such a context? We're talking food (or social media content), not methamphetamine or heroin. Any vendor aims to make their product maximally appealing to the target audience. McDonalds offers lots of fried food because that's what sells, which means it's what customers want and choose.

Oh and how about producing some truly healthy version of it by not adding so much oil into the processing?

They don't need to. If you want baked chicken with a side-order of green beans or similar, you can get that. Maybe not at McDonalds, but you can get it.

They are certainly contributing to America’s terminal obesity problem.

And these computers we're typing on contribute to unhealthy sedentary lifestyles.

But are 'they' really doing that? Someone opens a McDonalds location and nobody is forced to eat there, but some choose to. Seems likely more of those get obese, or more obese. So...did they make themselves obese by choosing to eat at McDonalds (and similar), or did McDonalds do it?

And while individuals vary widely in their beliefs about such things, the American perspective seems to lean towards the idea it is the individual making the choices. It's not Facebook's fault I 'doom scroll,' McDonald's fault I'm 'fluffy,' or La-Z-boy's fault I'm sedentary (gotta love my Roland recliner). And I don't want the government interfering with my access to any of those things.

It doesn’t need to be very far.

But it will. That kind of thinking is a slippery slope and it will escalate. It starts with the idea of holding companies accountable for customers' alleged 'misuse' of their products. Then companies are forced to make changes to deny customers products and services they might 'misuse' (in the government's view). Then maybe somebody decides that's not good enough, they also have an obligation to make life 'better.'

I don't want a world where I can't grab takeout at McDonalds and my recliner starts blaring an alarm if I crash in it too long. Government bureaucrats' need to feel important and impactful is an ever present threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Shirasaki]

They care, but not enough to make the full shift required to healthy weight. And this is a key philosophical difference where American individualism tends to rise up; in such situations, whose place is it to act (or not)? Some of us believe it's the individual's place to decide, not the government's place to 'protect him from himself' by outlawing McDonalds, for example.

After all, nobody is forced to eat at McDonalds.

But what is addiction in such a context? We're talking food (or social media content), not methamphetamine or heroin. Any vendor aims to make their product maximally appealing to the target audience. McDonalds offers lots of fried food because that's what sells, which means it's what customers want and choose.


They don't need to. If you want baked chicken with a side-order of green beans or similar, you can get that. Maybe not at McDonalds, but you can get it.


And these computers we're typing on contribute to unhealthy sedentary lifestyles.

But are 'they' really doing that? Someone opens a McDonalds location and nobody is forced to eat there, but some choose to. Seems likely more of those get obese, or more obese. So...did they make themselves obese by choosing to eat at McDonalds (and similar), or did McDonalds do it?

And while individuals vary widely in their beliefs about such things, the American perspective seems to lean towards the idea it is the individual making the choices. It's not Facebook's fault I 'doom scroll,' McDonald's fault I'm 'fluffy,' or La-Z-boy's fault I'm sedentary (gotta love my Roland recliner). And I don't want the government interfering with my access to any of those things.


But it will. That kind of thinking is a slippery slope and it will escalate. It starts with the idea of holding companies accountable for customers' alleged 'misuse' of their products. Then companies are forced to make changes to deny customers products and services they might 'misuse' (in the government's view). Then maybe somebody decides that's not good enough, they also have an obligation to make life 'better.'

I don't want a world where I can't grab takeout at McDonalds and my recliner starts blaring an alarm if I crash in it too long. Government bureaucrats' need to feel important and impactful is an ever present threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, all of these can be summaries into one phrase: cultural difference. EU has its own culture that favours a bit more government handholding and protection while America favours individualism and “let each other to decide”. As such, we have a terminal obesity problem. Or a pandemic of “doom scrolling”. Or large chunks of people sitting all day barely moving to anywhere, including commuting because everyone drives.

Now, for companies like Apple, Facebook, Google etc, they cannot just force individualism and all blame users wherever they operate, be it EU, Australia or anywhere outside of US. They must adapt to not only local legislations but regional culture differences and operate accordingly, rather than “one rule set for all”. Many parents here in Australia are not happy to see their kids glued to their iPhone etc all day all night without care. I don’t think American people would care what Australian parents think, but Facebook/TikTok etc can’t just say “we are an American company so American rules only or we terminate your service” even if they can, thus giving up those markets. The world doesn’t revolve only around USA. There are other countries in the world and they do exist. Average joes inside US can afford to ignore what people from other countries think but a globally operate company can’t, unless they don’t want to provide service to those countries.

Now, regarding your slippery slope argument, while I agree with such argument in a vacuum, by offloading responsibilities to individual, we risk another slippery slope: more and more individuals become problematic, and they start hurting other normal people, causing problems, taking up police resources and maybe also social welfare resources and so on. Yes it may be because said individual is irresponsible and doom scroll too much that he/she develops extremism views. What will happen next? He/she would rally more people online with similar views, and we have a gathering that might turn into violence. At that point, the entire society has to pay the price for tampering their views and control their actions so they don’t just start shooting at people randomly without care. America has been divided as-is already and hoping most or all individuals magically become responsible of their actions is just futile. In fact, I’d argue societies around the globe woefully lack the effort in teaching someone to be responsible. But that’s the argument for another day.

 

[drrich2]

So, all of these can be summaries into one phrase: cultural difference. EU has its own culture that favours a bit more government handholding and protection while America favours individualism and “let each other to decide”.

Yes. So it shifts to being an issue of to what degree we weigh 'cultural relativism,' that a foreign (to ourselves) culture is to be judged by its own beliefs/values vs. the idea that there is some objective standard of what is right/wrong, good/bad, etc... It's an important issue. After World War II, the Nazis were responsible for the horror of the Holocaust...but hey, they were the government! They could make the laws! And in the U.S., we condemn slavery from our pre-Civil War era as wrong, even though it was the culture (and law) of the time.

Adding to that, we are all the same species (humans), share considerable cultural influence and history (e.g.: collectively called 'the West,' if we're not including Russia and Asia), and we're mainly talking about contemporary first world nations. That said, people have diverse viewpoints and it's probably good that not every society runs exactly the same, as there's something to be said for diversity.

In that context, I'll take a look at examples you raised.

As such, we have a terminal obesity problem. Or a pandemic of “doom scrolling”. Or large chunks of people sitting all day barely moving to anywhere, including commuting because everyone drives.

Some would say that's a 'free will' problem, because many people in the society don't choose their lives to suit the ruling powers. The fat person chooses to overeat/under-exercise. The phone user chooses to doom scroll. Etc... Power and responsibility to together. People who abdicate personal responsibility will come under the management of a nanny state. They might be slimmer and doom scroll less, but is that a price one is willing to pay?

Many parents here in Australia are not happy to see their kids glued to their iPhone etc all day all night without care.

Where did the kids get the phones? Are there not parental control features available, such as Screen Time? I'm old enough to recall when many disdained people (including kids) spending hours per day glued to t.v. sets, which carried lovely nicknames like 'the boob tube' and 'one-eyed babysitter.'

Now, regarding your slippery slope argument, while I agree with such argument in a vacuum, by offloading responsibilities to individual, we risk another slippery slope: more and more individuals become problematic, and they start hurting other normal people, causing problems, taking up police resources and maybe also social welfare resources and so on. Yes it may be because said individual is irresponsible and doom scroll too much that he/she develops extremism views. What will happen next? He/she would rally more people online with similar views, and we have a gathering that might turn into violence. At that point, the entire society has to pay the price for tampering their views and control their actions so they don’t just start shooting at people randomly without care.

Now this...is deep. With deep ramifications for a society. Key examples would be claims of 'hate speech' and the example of Holocaust denial. In the U.S., we have founding principles of Freedom of Religion (which isn't just about theistic beliefs, but the right to hold whatever moral/value beliefs you choose) and of Speech (to share your views). And freedom of assembly, so we can get together with like-minded people. Yes, sometimes that turns ugly - racism, the Klu Klux Klan, Holocaust denial, etc... But a popular sentiment has historically been 'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.'

What you describe sounds like what in the U.S. might be considered 'the thought police.' A person with detestable views might socially network with fellows, persuade some newbies to join the cause, and that could escalate and cause harm. And we have laws against 'conspiracy to commit' crimes, inciting a riot, harassment, etc... And beyond the laws, there are social norms...I'm no fan of politically correct 'cancel culture,' but there are some blatant obnoxious displays that could trigger pushback.

But what you describe sounds like it could be used in a more collectivist culture to curtail individual liberty in order to prevent people from choosing more 'extreme' views so that it doesn't get to the point of having to arrest (or kill) a public shooter or quell a riot, etc...

I understand the logic, but on some level the government is then deciding what we're 'allowed' to think. What views we're allowed to hear so as to inform our thinking.

Interesting how concepts such as individuality vs. collectivism tie into government regulation of big foreign companies. How many people from the U.K. are on this thread? What do you think of the arguments Shirasaki (in Australia) and I (in America) debated? What of the rest of you what's traditionally called 'the West?' Hardly any country is absolute on such matters; what's your shade of gray?