It's my opinion that calling someone mentally unfit, for having a different opinion, can only be taken as an offense. I'm not not saying I'd sell my voice/appearance/etc, but people are more than capable of making fully informed decisions I don't agree with.

As someone that provides support for consumer email accounts, I am slightly surprised when I talk to a customer that already understood this. I don't think this would be the place it needs to be brought, but I'm glad to see this knowledge make the rounds every now and then.

I made one claim, and one claim only. Apple is only fighting it because it means less sales, not for political reasons. At no point have I argued the ethics or validity of the law.

To be clear, any barrier applied on sales will result in fewer sales. Apple will lose the sales that are currently being made by minors. Further, adults will also still have to complete the extra verification step. While it would have less of an impact, it will still reduce impulse purchases by adults.

From the summary:

If the law is to prevent kids from making purchases without direct approval, it means they are currently able to make purchases without direct approval. If they can make purchases, they have a payment method on file. Therefore, it's safe to assume that for the purpose of this law having a payment method on file is not enough.

Apps that aren't free, and in-app purchases. The summary even specifically mentioned IAP.

No, like I said, it's about sales.

Lets be absolutely clear here. It's not a red vs blue issue for Apple/Google. It's just a matter of sales to them.

You're talking about something else entirely. This is about there being a law to specifically notify senators about requests for records from law enforcement, and the carriers not providing said notifications.

It's more than just being Linux under the hood. The tools are open source. While it looks like Valve is only going to officially support SteamOS, you're able to get similar results from other distros.

SteamOS compatible will give Valve a little more control over the direction of the PC game market than before. However, that has little to do with SteamOS itself. Valve mostly cares that games are able to run on Linux, which allows them to sell games to Linux users. SteamOS just gives them an official avenue to verify against, instead of every distro/hardware combo.

That doesn't mean Valve couldn't abuse their position. It doesn't mean Steam being at the top is good for the market. It just doesn't seem like SteamOS/Proton are methods to increase control and dominance of the market, but to increase the size of the market.

I used figurative quotation marks because I didn't have a better simple term for my example. The example also wasn't meant to be a literal solution, but one to convey the intent behind my point.

Many apps will work, or partially work, if you decline a particular permission. The problem is that in a lot of cases those permission requirements exist for a legitimate reason. Further, it often won't be clear to the user if/why a particular requirement is needed. I've noticed apps doing a better job of explaining the reason, before it prompts you for permission. However, people are generally goal driven. In this case, the goal is to use the app. They will often readily accept whatever pops up without much thought. The goal of restricting what access apps can request is to limit the risk to the user.

It was a simplified example, and I used figurative quotation marks for "less secure" because I didn't have a better simple term handy for the example.

The same is true for society, but people generally agree that some rules/laws are necessary. I don't want to get political, just merely pointing out that that there are always going to be limits on freedom.

Just to clarify, my statement was about the general state of things. In regards to this Nextcloud issue, I know Google has a list of exceptions that qualify for keeping the access level they need. It sounds like their app should qualify. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Google targeting them, but I also wouldn't be surprised if this is just someone ignoring the exceptions to the rule.

At the surface level, I disagree. Smartphones are ubiquitous and there are a LOT of people using them that don't understand the risks. As someone that has to support those people, I support Play Store apps being more restrictive. That said, I think Android's current methods of allowing 3rd party apps/stores could be improved. I don't know what the best solution would be, but something like a security option to enable "less secure" apps in the store could work.

IANAL. According to the article, they're claiming just that. I don't know if that is how it was structured, just that they claim it. Regardless, it sounds like there is might be enough going on here to consider successor liability.

My analogy was said in jest, as I noted. Its sole purpose was to mention something that has a lasting impact, even after its removal. If the only thing you can quibble over is my analogy, then my actual point stands.