But democracy isn't the only alternative, or the best one.
What we are really discussing is totalitarian regimes. One is Apple, a top down secretive corporation with policies, dictating what will happen. The other is China, which like many Communist countries uses the "will of the people" as a surrogate for its own desires.
Representative democracy can have same issues. Take for example Prohibition, or the current war on drugs. And many other things.
I think that when it comes to PLATFORMS, there should be no barrier to entry. I would go further and say that I want there to be CENTRALIZED COLLABORATION on a platform, and not competition (eg of browser makers). But the platform must implement every extension that becomes popular enough. In other words when an app or extension becomes popular enough, it should be incorporated into the platform as one standard.
Think of how much headache would be solved and how much more could have been done if there were no browser quirks, and only one major browser.
The difference is that ANYONE should be able to build their own browser extension or website. ANYONE should be able to host it on the internet accessible to all. And if it gets popular enough it gets added to the feature list for EVERYONE.
However, this is a different form of governance - nothing is RESTRICTED from people and they are free to try new things.
>I want there to be CENTRALIZED COLLABORATION on a platform, and not competition (eg of browser makers)
>only one major browser
>nothing is RESTRICTED from people and they are free to try new things
What happens when one does a new attempt at a browser, that cannot be merged into the original major browser when it gets big enough?
For a simple example, suppose Google Chrome was the only major browser in such a model. One day, someone decides that C++ is too prone to vulnerabilities, and creates a new browser, called Firefox, based on Rust (on an entirely new codebase). What will happen when Firefox becomes sufficiently large to be considered major?
If it can't get merged due to something fundamental, then it can be a competitor. But that's a very rare case. The vasy majority of extensions are eminently able to be incorporated into the core.
What we are really discussing is totalitarian regimes. One is Apple, a top down secretive corporation with policies, dictating what will happen. The other is China, which like many Communist countries uses the "will of the people" as a surrogate for its own desires.
Representative democracy can have same issues. Take for example Prohibition, or the current war on drugs. And many other things.
I think that when it comes to PLATFORMS, there should be no barrier to entry. I would go further and say that I want there to be CENTRALIZED COLLABORATION on a platform, and not competition (eg of browser makers). But the platform must implement every extension that becomes popular enough. In other words when an app or extension becomes popular enough, it should be incorporated into the platform as one standard.
Think of how much headache would be solved and how much more could have been done if there were no browser quirks, and only one major browser.
The difference is that ANYONE should be able to build their own browser extension or website. ANYONE should be able to host it on the internet accessible to all. And if it gets popular enough it gets added to the feature list for EVERYONE.
However, this is a different form of governance - nothing is RESTRICTED from people and they are free to try new things.