I'd counter that their efforts in pushing for the reform is the nobler of the two endeavors. At some point, probably sooner rather than later, I feel it will become necessary to look at the ecosphere of app distribution as well as dissemination of data and communication. If we consider the effective de facto monopolies that Google and Apple have over app distribution, the argument can at least be made that they bear a responsibility of either neutrality or consistency of policy regarding what they make available. This would not be entirely dissimilar to the very arguments made in favor of net neutrality as consumers would have it applied to ISPs. Just as ISPs serve as the conduit between consumers and the wide open internet, so too do Google and Apple function as gatekeepers to the very functionality of mobile devices. What's more they do so as a duopoly.
Sure, the counter to this stance is likely to be that it is possible (I will speak only to Android, as I have virtually no firsthand experience with iOS devices) that there is the alternative of sources for app installation such as Amazon or F-Droid or even direct download of APKs that can be sideloaded. But we all know well enough that Google has very much engineered Android to default to their services in almost every respect. If one is making the suggestion that it is acceptable for them to then decide on behalf of users what they can or cannot have access to for applications, then how can we not accept ISPs assertion that it is their right to prioritize or even control the data that gets communicated through their networks? Surely the logic must follow that users that do not care for ISP data handling practices have the ability to seek alternate means of data connection even if that means resorting to dialup (I would make the analogy that dialup is to net connection as F-Droid is to app distribution).
The point being that Google and Apple have deliberately positioned themselves to be the monopolies of distribution of apps of their respective platforms. I legitimately do not see how an argument can be made against anti-trust practices Store policies notwithstanding if enforcement of those policies is inconsistent at best.
NO ONE should. Everyone WILL. Gay, straight, black, white, you name a trait and someone has had to contend with discrimination of one form or another. Making assertions that no one is burdened other than bigots is fallacious and absurd. The single biggest flaw in the very concept of passing such laws is that there really is no metric for determining actual discrimination. It all ends up coming down to some person not getting their way and then looking into a mirror to see what attribute they can exploit to paint themselves as some sort of victim so they can cry 'discrimination' until they get what they want.
There should only be equality under the law. Yes, that law should apply equally to everyone of ALL clases. Perceived civil injustice should require a much higher burden of proof than it currently does, but here once again that would require actual effort to be made. but apparently it's much easier, for example, for someone to have a disagreement with a family member and run to a protectionist judge for an injunction than to solve their own bloody problems privately, constitution be damned.
But by all means, continue on with corroding all of our civil rights for the sake of 'muh special status'.
And really, I think this very response goes to illustrate the very naive and infantile understanding and expectation that the American people have come to with respect to government as a whole. This just shows how it is becoming more widely accepted that the government should fit the role of a protectionist nanny leaning increasingly towards authoritarianism. Every passing year yields the addition of another group or interest clamoring for their own special protections. The very concept of 'freedom' is being twisted and bastardized; where once it was intended and understood to mean personal agency and independence, it seems to be more and more contorted to mean 'freedom to not have to experience things I don't like'. It really feels like people are willing to employ government to undercut their own liberty and agency if the immediate aim of avoiding even a modicum of strife is met.
The result? A response argument consisting entirely of a bizarre series of nonsense 'what ifs' and references to fairy tale characters presented in the context of upholding government protectionist ideology. Meanwhile, in the real world, this very mindset is precisely what is employed by such as the judge in this story as justification of ends justifying the means.
If I failed at any aspect of my job as grotesquely as this judge did at upholding the law and the Constitution (HIS job), I would be summarily dismissed and escorted from the premises by security.
Once upon a time I had a similar arrangement with a local ISP that subbed out through blocks of AT&T IPs. It was a pretty sweet deal because it was somehow cheaper than going through ATT directly yet was not subject to the data caps imposed by ATT to their own customers. What's more, the local ISP was more mellow than a hardcore stoner when it came to billing. No joke, they may as well just come out and say that paying for the service is optional and on the honor system.
I wept softly when I moved out of their service area.
"Essentially, the Iranian government licenses websites that stream or upload Hollywood content for pirating, and TinyMoviez wasn't of the licensed variety. The licensed pirate sites complained to the government that they could not compete with an unlicensed pirate site and asked the government to shut them down."
Yeah, I'm guessing there is an Hollywood Exec somewhere stating that they have the strangest boner right now. Pirates being punished, but for the benefit of other pirates. I wonder how they will manage to reconcile that with themselves.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TenderBabyMeat.
Re:
Sure, the counter to this stance is likely to be that it is possible (I will speak only to Android, as I have virtually no firsthand experience with iOS devices) that there is the alternative of sources for app installation such as Amazon or F-Droid or even direct download of APKs that can be sideloaded. But we all know well enough that Google has very much engineered Android to default to their services in almost every respect. If one is making the suggestion that it is acceptable for them to then decide on behalf of users what they can or cannot have access to for applications, then how can we not accept ISPs assertion that it is their right to prioritize or even control the data that gets communicated through their networks? Surely the logic must follow that users that do not care for ISP data handling practices have the ability to seek alternate means of data connection even if that means resorting to dialup (I would make the analogy that dialup is to net connection as F-Droid is to app distribution).
The point being that Google and Apple have deliberately positioned themselves to be the monopolies of distribution of apps of their respective platforms. I legitimately do not see how an argument can be made against anti-trust practices Store policies notwithstanding if enforcement of those policies is inconsistent at best.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There should only be equality under the law. Yes, that law should apply equally to everyone of ALL clases. Perceived civil injustice should require a much higher burden of proof than it currently does, but here once again that would require actual effort to be made. but apparently it's much easier, for example, for someone to have a disagreement with a family member and run to a protectionist judge for an injunction than to solve their own bloody problems privately, constitution be damned.
But by all means, continue on with corroding all of our civil rights for the sake of 'muh special status'.
Re: Re:
The result? A response argument consisting entirely of a bizarre series of nonsense 'what ifs' and references to fairy tale characters presented in the context of upholding government protectionist ideology. Meanwhile, in the real world, this very mindset is precisely what is employed by such as the judge in this story as justification of ends justifying the means.
If I failed at any aspect of my job as grotesquely as this judge did at upholding the law and the Constitution (HIS job), I would be summarily dismissed and escorted from the premises by security.
Re: Doesn't help out everyone, but look into EarthLink
I wept softly when I moved out of their service area.
Somewhere, in a Hollywood Exec's corner office...
Yeah, I'm guessing there is an Hollywood Exec somewhere stating that they have the strangest boner right now. Pirates being punished, but for the benefit of other pirates. I wonder how they will manage to reconcile that with themselves.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TenderBabyMeat.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt