georgie01

I have a XS and am happily upgrading.

Firstly because my battery is down to 82% capacity (it mysteriously dropped 8% in the first 3 months after getting it even though I only ever charged it overnight on a slow charger, and I doubted Apple would do anything about it). I could get a new battery, but I could trade in my XS for $300 and get an additional $150 from T-Mobile.

While I don’t know if there is a definite case here, unlike the ‘monopoly’ of the App Store this accusation does make sense. Google came as a user of the internet providing a search service alongside other search services like AltaVista, and perhaps they’ve leveraged their success and huge resources to push competition out of a open market.

Mike Wuerthele said:

The existing section 230 disagrees with you. Twitter does not generate its own content which is the requirement to be a publisher, and even if it did, only the content that Twitter staff generated or paid would count to make it a publisher. Fact-checking, editing, or deleting user-generated content doesn't make it a publisher, and "moderation" is, in fact, required by section 230 now, and in the proposed reforms. We'll see how it goes.

Except ... that ‘fact checking’ has become more than ‘moderation’. Surely you’re intelligent enough to see this? Or perhaps you’re just not aware of what’s going on.

As one example among many, a friend of mine had his Facebook post ‘fact checked’ (i.e. censored) and the only thing it had was a link to a CDC page giving statistics on the effectiveness of mask wearing in a specific study of coronavirus cases. The CDC website, the CDC’s data itself, was considered dangerous enough to warrant censoring. If that’s not questionable enough, the idea that masks (of the type that the majority of people wear) are effective in stopping the spread of the coronavirus is not conclusively supported by any science right now.  So Facebook is censoring data from the CDC because they say it could be misleading even though how they claim it’s misleading isn’t scientifically proven. That’s called imposing an unproven opinion upon millions of people.

When a service provider is imposing their own opinions on what users post—which is absolutely what’s going on—then they become publishers. By controlling the content to fit a specific perspective they are effectively publishing content. Hiding behind ‘independent fact checkers’ doesn’t mean that’s not what’s going on. They should be neutral, all voices heard equally (according to what is legal, at least).

Really lame... A clear example of people with a preconceived idea seeing what they want to see.

If iOS was opened up to 3rd party stores and if web apps were more encouraged we would see a decline in quality and security, and we would see no reduction in overall app prices. With the exception of app subscriptions (which suck), app prices are already so ridiculously low. Do people not have a memory of what software prices were like before Apple’s App Store? Apple’s efforts even brought down pricing on some desktop apps because consumer expectations have changed.

If these companies had simply said they want more money then I’d accept that, but as is this collation is simply a list of companies I won’t do business with. This coalition to me looks like a group of crap people who don’t deserve their customers.