▲ 639 ▼ ICEBlock Owner After Apple Removes App: ‘We Are Determined to Fight This’ (www.404media.co) submitted 1 year ago by ardi60@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world locked 94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] blave@lemmy.world -41 points 1 year ago* (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 1 year ago (1 child) Except we aren't talking about the law. We are talking about corporations that sell you something and then retain control over it. You have no say in the process, you have no representation. These are not rules that we as a society have determined to be in the best interests of all of us. These are unilateral decisions placed upon us. You have no recourse if you disagree other than don't use the thing. Guns don't prevent you from doing anything. You still have the capability to do whatever you want with the thing. However, if you use it in a manner than harms someone else, in a way that we as a society have proposed, voted, and created laws prohibiting, then you deal with the consequences. But that is very different from having something in the gun that prevents it from taking ammo from another manufacturer. Or making it unable to shoot unless you pay a monthly fee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] blave@lemmy.world -22 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago No. We weren't. This discussion was about phones and the software we are being allowed to install on them. The law does nothing to restrict us in that capacity. The restrictions are imposed by the manufacturer of the phone. You made the fallacious false equivalency of comparing that with guns and laws. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Right, you can't break the law. Gun manufacturers are very explicitly not responsible if you break the law with one of the items they manufactured. This is more like the gun manufacturer coming back two years after you bought it and preventing you from using bullets from a vendor they don't approve of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Taking away functionality is a selling point? What a load of bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 1 year ago (1 child) Except we aren't talking about the law. We are talking about corporations that sell you something and then retain control over it. You have no say in the process, you have no representation. These are not rules that we as a society have determined to be in the best interests of all of us. These are unilateral decisions placed upon us. You have no recourse if you disagree other than don't use the thing. Guns don't prevent you from doing anything. You still have the capability to do whatever you want with the thing. However, if you use it in a manner than harms someone else, in a way that we as a society have proposed, voted, and created laws prohibiting, then you deal with the consequences. But that is very different from having something in the gun that prevents it from taking ammo from another manufacturer. Or making it unable to shoot unless you pay a monthly fee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] blave@lemmy.world -22 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago No. We weren't. This discussion was about phones and the software we are being allowed to install on them. The law does nothing to restrict us in that capacity. The restrictions are imposed by the manufacturer of the phone. You made the fallacious false equivalency of comparing that with guns and laws. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] blave@lemmy.world -22 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago No. We weren't. This discussion was about phones and the software we are being allowed to install on them. The law does nothing to restrict us in that capacity. The restrictions are imposed by the manufacturer of the phone. You made the fallacious false equivalency of comparing that with guns and laws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago No. We weren't. This discussion was about phones and the software we are being allowed to install on them. The law does nothing to restrict us in that capacity. The restrictions are imposed by the manufacturer of the phone. You made the fallacious false equivalency of comparing that with guns and laws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Right, you can't break the law. Gun manufacturers are very explicitly not responsible if you break the law with one of the items they manufactured. This is more like the gun manufacturer coming back two years after you bought it and preventing you from using bullets from a vendor they don't approve of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Taking away functionality is a selling point? What a load of bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Taking away functionality is a selling point? What a load of bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Taking away functionality is a selling point? What a load of bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent