Freedom of ANY kind allows bad things to happen. The most secure world is one in which we are all locked up, nobody ever interacts, and are only fed via tube from their government provided feeder in their government provided cube.

Since I'm fairly sure that isn't what you're advocating, please, explain what you're hoping to accomplish by stating that a free and open internet is a problem.

Beautiful list though and well said. I've been trying to think of a succinct way to summarize some of those concepts and I think you've broken them up well.

You know exactly what I was trying to say. ONE counter example to a statistic doesn't invalidate the statistic and you were trying to say that just because very very very rarely someone makes productive use of their phone (one out of millions), that therefore there's no problem with how people use phones. Even you have to see how that argument misses the mark.

Honestly just reverse the drug bans, treat them life public health problems, and disband agencies like this. Nothing good has ever come out of giving government agencies this kind of power and this kind of mandate.

I want tech to augment their lives, not replace them (or destroy them).

We now have to work HARD to keep these devices away from him. Part of it, of course, is he observes how much attention we pay them but his eyes definitely light up differently when they are turned on. And that's without the manipulative, 1000-engineers-optimizing-for-your-addiction software built into them.

I honestly find it harder and harder to believe these things do anything positive for us. I 100% believe they can I just think we've turned them into something ugly, right now.

and then we turn it into an almost-exclusively advertising tool designed to convert a human being into a money making machine.

It's one of the reasons I'm not enthusiastic about technology anymore. I see what we do with it. Every. Single. Time.

It makes me sad. All the lost potential.

What would one or both of these stores need to do, to qualify as 'anti-competitive' to you?

I was >< this close to choosing Gitlab over Github due to this - I stopped all efforts to make the decision until I saw how this plays out.

Happy to push to Github now.

It's a data point of one, but there you go..

Put a price on that.

But also agree it was offtopic for the Github issue. Keep that focused on the naming and IP issue.

I mean I guess I already know the answer, "marketing". "Look, macOS doesn't require antivirus!"

Personally I don't want Apple verifying or revoking anything. I bought the computer, it's mine. You don't get to tell me what I can run, period. Inform me, sure, give me links to go learn why you don't want me to run something, sure. Don't prevent me from choosing to do with my machine what I want.

I think a good goal would be to scream it as loud as possible and make sure people are buying it based on this dimension as well.

Overall I agree it's silly we even need to do this.

Taking a serious look

I think the overall point here is to have the support of law that says they DO have a duty to you, by benefit of their hosting your account and authenticating you elsewhere.

Then, WHEN someone goes to sue them, the person has much stronger legs in court rather than lone Peggy Sue trying to defeat Google's 300-strong team of lawyers who exist just to eat little guys for breakfast.

Seems like there's an opportunity there though. If someone could create a platform that would take your address, create you a custom domain, set it up, get your email flowing there (including porting over all your existing email out of gmail), and then helping you move your sign ins to that new address..

That'd be huge. It would also be very, very hard, the amount of infrastructure it would touch.. but doable.