Until you realize that those who complain the loudest about anti-hate-speech laws were always those, who proposed genocide as a solution to the problems of society.
I think the issue is that general business and consumer computing platforms have been open & Apple demands a toll to distribute any paid software on their mobile platforms and allows no rivals.
The concept of tolls is not new starting from prior to the App Store in 2008, when the resellers had exclusive control of what got sold and charged a hefty fee for distribution. My tax paying dollars are okay with this type of system.
I don’t think it has to be explained. The only criteria is 1) is it legal and 2). Does the customer know it and if the customer doesn’t like the system can they get a refund.
I have more personal information on my iphone/ipad than I do on my windows computer. Not to say, there is no PII and sensitive information on windows.
Having a lot of stuff on windows is not the same as having all financial documents and pii on windows.
Again, if you are threatening people, that’s a death threat and should not be taken lightly.
OK, I get it - you're on the side of the company (Apple) being able to decide how it does business.
Make up your mind! Either you do have laws against hate speech enforced by the police and judiciary. Or you're scared by the possibilities of law enforcement enforcing the law, because the state can't be trusted. You can't have it both ways. Corporate self-regulation produces only arbitrariness and lawlessness. Not even Judge Dredd worked for corporate.
Someone should be allowed to say hateful things without the state saying a thing. (doesn’t make it good) Death threats are very different from hate speech. Someone shouting an offensive slur at me (which has happened to me) is not the same as someone who is threatening to kill me. Only in those extreme situations should the state ever get involved. Even then you must be careful that it wasn’t said in jest.
And yet, it's always privately moderated forums, who overreact and ban people for having dissenting opinions. No policeman will come only because you said on r/vegan that eating animal protein is essential for a healthy diet. Since you as a society can't trust in the state to make the right calls on which speech to ban, you will only have very limited protection by law enforcement and rampant cancel culture among the public. This then results in Nippelgate and the Seven Dirty Words you can't say on TV or type in a **** chat.
Then explain to me why the state would need to control hate speech again? If society makes its own standards, why would more be needed?
Why do football games have referees? Why don't let the players make up their own rules on the go and also decide which goals count. Because it's a dumb idea.
You’re comparing a sport to the state. The reason I’m scared of state censorship is because it’s been used for the worse. McCarthyism censorship the US, censorship by the Nazis in Germany, censorship in the USSR, I could go on.
But McCarthy was neither a policeman nor a judge, not even a referee. All these jobs come with a proper training program, role description and rule book to learn. He was just a politician abusing his right to free speech to infringe on the rights of others. If only there were rules in place to stop him! 😂
Again, it would have been possible to ban Apple from denying developers access to its app store based on arbitrary and anticompetitive reasons while making Apple warranty apps for quality and security. That would have removed the whole issue about competition while enhancing security. The EU could have even required Apple to charge app store fees on a not-for-profit basis. Yet it chose to interfere with consumer choice for Apple's walled garden, and indeed any walled gardens companies had been planning in the future.
That’s my point, politicians shouldn’t be involved in regulating speech. His rule book was supposed to be the US Constitution. However, he like many other politicians to this day, chose to ignore it.
McCarthy didn’t regulate free speech, he executed his unfettered right to use hate speech for populism and building himself a career on destroying other people’s lives without evidence that any of his accusations are actually true. He is the reason that you can’t have absolute free speech and need rules to stop this abuse.
Ok. But I think another App Store will be ok.
Still not answering the question of why we need to do this at all if only a small portion of users use the feature.
Because those who don't tinker and don't care about tinkering have a tough time grasping the basics of why people who ask for tinkering do so repeatedly. Apple has been historically extremely anti-customization on everything, which means a sizeable number of users would be forced to endure their pain points while using iOS.
Have you ever tried? Because it’s easier than switching a lightbulb. Just put in your zip-code and buy your electricity from up north. Only if you don’t make your own electricity contract, the default will be the base tariff of your local network provider.
Because freedom of choice is absolutely necessary for a functioning market economy! The mere possibility that a popular app like Fortnite could leave the AppStore and market itself over the internet will keep Apple second guessing their store rules and pricing policy.
