> That's good - we've moved from no harm to a balancing competing harms, which I think reflects the reality of the situation.
Not really, because there is no balance. Way more harm is done in the name of protecting people than is done by allowing freedoms.
The rest of your argument is predicated upon there being some kind of balance. There isn't one.
You don't need to look any further than The War on Drugs to see this. It's already been scientifically proven that letting people do what they want is far better for society. The only people who work to keep drugs illegal are those who benefit from them being illegal. Same thing here.
There's not much more to say about this. You're never going to convince me that removing freedom is better for society when people will always have the choice to remove it for themselves by making the right choices about who to associate with or who to do business with.
You've made a compelling argument that Apple should be allowed to, in their freedom, do whatever they feel appropriate with regard to their own App store. The we each can make the right choice about whether or not we as individuals should do business with them. We should allow them that freedom. I'm convinced!
> You've made a compelling argument that Apple should be allowed to, in their freedom, do whatever they feel appropriate with regard to their own App store.
They're free to try. There's more of us than them though and we're also free to continue enforcing our existing anti-trust laws and make new ones for important digital platforms.
I advocate for freedom for the common man. What are you doing here?
It seems like you've moved from a position of "way more harm is done by protecting people than allowing freedoms" to "more harm is done by allowing Apple to do as they wish; we need protection from that", despite Apple being a subset of "people".
And the "more of us than them" suggests that rather than any principled approach, you advocate something like the mob rule that the Athenians described to the Melians: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Fair enough. That position has been common enough throughout history. Right now lots of people appear to like the way Apple is running their company. Does that make it right? You seem to think no, but are articulating reasons why you should think yes. That's perplexing to me.
I'm trying to make sense of what I think about the disagreement between Apple and Epic. I'm not sure. The arguments people are making against Apple so far seem unsuccessful and problematic to me. I think the collective bargaining argument I've cautiously advanced might make some sense.
If you couldn’t tell that I completely disagree with your backwards notion of what’s right and good by now and that nothing you’ll say will convince me that less freedom for common folks is somehow better...even after I’ve told you this directly...yet you keep responding to me, I guess you just need to have the last word?
Not really, because there is no balance. Way more harm is done in the name of protecting people than is done by allowing freedoms.
The rest of your argument is predicated upon there being some kind of balance. There isn't one.
You don't need to look any further than The War on Drugs to see this. It's already been scientifically proven that letting people do what they want is far better for society. The only people who work to keep drugs illegal are those who benefit from them being illegal. Same thing here.
There's not much more to say about this. You're never going to convince me that removing freedom is better for society when people will always have the choice to remove it for themselves by making the right choices about who to associate with or who to do business with.