Apple has released a scaremongering, self-serving warning aimed at the Australian government, claiming that Australians will be overrun by a parade of digital horribles if Australia follows the European Union’s lead and regulates Apple’s “walled garden.” The EU’s Digital Markets Act is a big,...
  • disco@lemdro.idEnglish
    12·
    16 days ago

    “we’ve seen your data and quite frankly we don’t like it”

  • Luffy@lemmy.ml
    71·
    16 days ago

    OK, but dont like half of all people usw Android and Windows?

    If they were right we should be able to See the effects of the regulation, right? right?

  • vinniep@beehaw.orgEnglish
    3·
    16 days ago

    I think everyone jumping on this and trying to argue that Apple is so very wrong in this assertion that people will get bombarded with malicious garbage is coming at this from the wrong angle. The part that I think we should be pushing back on in the argument that, in order to protect them from themselves, we should allow Apple to restrict them unilaterally.

    People, in general, make just awful decisions in terms of security and quality of the apps they download. We’ve seen it since the very first app store and it continues today. “But Android apps can be side loaded and it’s not that bad” Yes, it is that bad. The fact that you, someone that is more informed and experienced than the average, can navigate this successfully and safely is not an indicator of the general population.

    Ultimately, the argument that people will mess this up is objectively true. The place we should push back is the argument that we should allow Apple to protect us from ourselves.

    If Apple believes they can cultivate a safer and higher quality app store, they should take that message to the people. Convince them that if they stay in Apple’s app store ecosystem, they will be happier and safer. If you can’t convince them, though, the law should not allow you to force them into compliance. If we have a variety of marketplaces, they will need to differentiate themselves from one another somehow. That’s most likely going to be on price, but we could also have someone step up to make a market focused on security, privacy, or some other value proposition.

    “It won’t expose people to bad apps” is just the wrong argument. We should instead just say “Yeah. And?” The freedom to make that decision, and possibly make those mistakes, isn’t the problem - it’s the point

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
    66·
    16 days ago

    I don’t even need to read the article to know that they didn’t actually say that.

      • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
        28·
        16 days ago

        So they didn’t…

        The title should quote what they actually said rather than putting their own bias on it. You’d call them out for twisting your words like that. Hold yourself to the same standards.

        • Midnitte@beehaw.orgEnglish
          3·
          16 days ago

          Except the title isn’t a quote, it’s a paraphrase - hence why there are no quotation marks.

          You could say “Midnitte to OpinionHaver: their opinion is stupid and wrong”, even if the actual statement was, “Midnitte said OpinionHaver was wrong and making incorrect judgments about language”.

          Apple’s statement is probably much longer than would fit into a sensible title bar…

        • ranandtoldthat@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          16 days ago

          As a reader, you can’t rely on headlines to be a replacement for reading the article. Headlines tend to be shorter than the corresponding article and require a level of summarization to be effective.

          • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
            1·
            16 days ago

            But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.

    • Mark With a Z@lemmy.kde.social
      7·
      16 days ago

      Well, I did read it. Obviously Apple didn’t use those exact words, but the argument is the same: users are incapable of making safe decisions and need to be protected from themselves.