US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones

BmeBenji , 2 months ago

The crux of this suit seems to be that the DOJ believes that Apple needs to make its hardware fair to everyone that can develop on it, and make its software fair to all possible hardware that can run it, which is particularly interesting because Apple’s main product seems to be a pleasant and easy user experience that cuts through the physical barriers of the pieces of hardware it sells. And part of that user experience is the sense of security that is supposed to come with knowing that Apple is (more or less) able to decide who is allowed to access important, secure elements of their hardware.

On the software side of things, I don’t fully understand why or how the DOJ could force Apple to develop better integration support for cross-vendor hardware usage? Why do they need to go the extra mile to make an Apple Watch work well with an Android phone? Because the DOJ says so? I mean, sure I guess that would be better for everyone but it’s a weird thing to require.

CyberSeeker , 2 months ago

antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry

United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966).

A market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not.

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)

KairuByte , 2 months ago

In my opinion, the first quote doesn’t apply at all. Unless you can express how Apple is objectively superior?

And Apple smartphone market share is at the higher end of your second quote. When all competitors are much lower, it may very well be that it is considered a monopoly. Though that’s literally what this case will determine.

BmeBenji , 2 months ago

Objectively superior? Superior user experience is entirely subjective, but that is the main selling point of almost everything Apple has done in the last 17 years

RGB3x3 , 2 months ago

Marketing and reality are two different things. It's definitely not a superior experience. When Apple's stuff stops working, and it frequently does, the user has zero control to fix anything. Instead, they're shoehorned into having no recourse other than to use Apple's support, making them entirely dependent on the company in order to use their device.

Apple purposely hamstrings the user experience to exert control over users.

_tezz , 2 months ago

Whoever down voted you is coping, this is easily seen all over their products. RCS, headphone ports, charging ports, not allowing you to side load apps, the walled garden, yadda yadda. Apple makes good (really expensive) hardware but the rest is marketing.

BmeBenji , 2 months ago

I think you’re just proving that it is entirely subjective. If it was objectively an inferior experience, I’m confident they wouldn’t be nearly as popular as they are. I get that there are plenty of people who believe firmly that total control over their own electronics is the best experience, and I can understand that. I enjoy tinkering in a Linux machine as much as any Lemmy user. However the vast majority of people do not want to be overwhelmed with the amount of ways they can configure their devices to the point that they can’t discern one choice from another. And my iPhone does exactly what I need it to just as much as my Android did.

Yeah, marketing is definitely part of it. They make their devices sound, look, and appear like they’re some sort of luxury experience. But there’s definitely something extremely smooth about the way Apple’s suite of software works with their hardware, and how their hardware works with each other, and I appreciate that for what it is.

horsey , 2 months ago

Apple has been more successful in the US, so by definition one could conclude they’ve done something better than competitors, whether it’s the products, timing, or something else about their business activities. People aren’t forced to buy iPhones any more than they are forced to buy Android.

TheGrandNagus , 2 months ago

By this logic all monopolies could be described as being better.

horsey , 2 months ago

I think you could analyze it based on a company's history. Some companies clearly didn't earn a monopoly, for instance if they had a market handed to them by the government. Or, if they did the thing that's actually illegal under antitrust law - used a monopoly in one market to expand to another.

dustyData , 2 months ago

By this same logic, on a global scale they are not dominant, so they can be argued to be a worse product, not superior. Therefore, their dominance on the US must be forced by coercive actions and categorized as a monopoly.

horsey , 2 months ago

Their actions in the US market and tastes of US customers are not necessarily the same as elsewhere in the world. If Apple concentrated marketing in the US, for example, that would be sufficient.

captainastronaut , 2 months ago

Is this really the biggest problem in the US right now? Can the justice department maybe spend some time on gun violence, climate denial, misinformation, dark money in politics…. Like 1000 other things that are literally killing people before we worry about this? Or is this just because it’s an election year and they think it will be popular…

KairuByte , 2 months ago

When your family does spring cleaning, does the entire family all focus on each specific thing individually, or are you capable of collectively handling multiple things at the same time?

dezmd , 2 months ago

Not necessarily the best example, if you split the work up too much, you can end up with a bunch of unfinished projects, when everyone works together on specific items together you are more likely to get specific things done quickly and have them be more fully 'completed.'

Source: Actually have a family, actually do spring cleaning.

KairuByte , 2 months ago

Well, in the case of the DOJ the “individual family member” is a group of people. I was just pointing out that one thing being done doesn’t mean other things are not also being done.

noxy , 2 months ago

were you breathing as you typed this out?

NotMyOldRedditName , 2 months ago

The apple watch thing is kinda interesting.

So you make a watch and it has super tight integrations with OS level software on the phone.

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

Maybe they could force them to let it function in some limited way but where do you draw the line on forcing them to write android apps?

KairuByte , 2 months ago

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

No, they can’t really force it. But it’s evidence in support of the accusation.

But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do. And they’d likely be able to bake Android support in by utilizing the already available Wear OS API.

NotMyOldRedditName , 2 months ago

But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do.

That's kinda true, but not what I was getting at. Android has restrictive background processing limits and the APIs around it keep getting more restrictive and the OEMs like Samsung keep ignoring the rules of how things should work and break your apps when you do it right anyway.. Ultimately it's incredibly difficult to write an app and guarantee background work.

Apple, is even worse on its restrictions of background work, but Apple owns the OS and and can bypass it all for their watch.

Apple will never get to bypass the fuckery you have to deal with on Android, only the Android OEMs get that.

heartsofwar , 2 months ago (edited 6 days ago)

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

NotMyOldRedditName , 2 months ago

What do you do though if Apple is telling the truth and allowing 3rd party wallets would degrade the security even for their own wallet?

Zak , 2 months ago

Perhaps they aren't lying, but claims about security often involve theoretical weaknesses that aren't practical to exploit in the real world. Apple is very skilled at making sure those claims align with their business interests.

4am , 2 months ago

I would ask them to prove that claim in court for starters.

I would ask them why they feel they’d be liable for users who installed and gave permission to an app that would use NFC readers for payments.

I would ask them why access to the NFC reader by a 3rd party app in any way allows access to Apple Pay’s stored, encrypted data (which it doesn’t need)

I would ask why permission settings and security validations couldn’t be made on API calls with the potential to be harmful. Even for third-party app stores, Apple could still require app reviews and code signing for any apps that want to conduct financial transactions; they just don’t want to because they’ll make less money from Apple Pay.

Apple often handholds user flows and restricts access to features because non-technical folks might be tricked into installing a malicious or insecure service, and Apple stuff is built for non/technical people. But, on the flipside, they often leverage this position to wall you into their garden. This is the problematic practice that needs to be addressed.

0xD , 2 months ago

It would not. It's really as simple as that, saying as someone with two degrees in cyber security and 7 years of experience as a security consultant for various companies from small shops to multinational businesses, banks, and insurance companies.

I would love to see their threat modelling to justify what they're saying to brainwash their acolytes... It's a pure strawman to justify their bullshit.

JoeCoT , 2 months ago

They don't have to force them to make an app. Instead they could make them provide an interface that an app can use. Instead of their current strategy of thwarting any attempt to make their ecosystem interoperable with competitor's devices. I imagine them instantly killing Beeper's connection to iMessage was a part of this move.

AA5B , 2 months ago

• You can use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.
• anyone can create and sell a Watch App - Apple maintains the store and basic functionality
• you can use another brand Watch with an iPhone - I see the apps

DjMeas , 2 months ago

I think the point though is you might be able to connect a Garmin to your iPhone but only Apple Watches get special access to certain APIs because "security".

shrugal , 2 months ago

They don't have to make extra apps, just remove restrictions that make some functionality exclusive to iPhones or Apple Watches. So iPhones get the same access to Apple Watches as other phones, and Apple Watches get the same access to iPhones as other watches.

pete_the_cat , 2 months ago

Lol nice

markstos , 2 months ago

Don’t piss off the small phone fans at the DOJ.

NeoNachtwaechter , 2 months ago

We all know that these accusations are true.

So much so that I need to ask: is it really illegal to do all these things?

popcap200 , 2 months ago

The EU said so, and the US did successfully sue valve for monopoly practices.

Kedly , 2 months ago

Except it wasnt successful since its still in the court, and Valve has counter sued for the lawsuit "abuse(ing) the legal process and interfer(ing) with Valve’s relationships with its customers"

popcap200 , 2 months ago

Oh lol my b. I saw the ads for being eligible for compensation and thought they lost.

AA5B , 2 months ago

EU decisions carry no legal weight in US, and I’m sure the laws are very different. Maybe it signals opportunity and regulator opinion but they’re completely independent decisions

horsey , 2 months ago

I’ve wondered that in the past when people say Apple has a monopoly - there seems to be choice in the market. One can function fine with an Android phone. But people have said “they have a monopoly on iPhones” which doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course they do, but that’s not the same as a monopoly on mobile phones. Also having a monopoly isn’t illegal, only abusing it is. It’s not legal to have a successful proprietary product?

NeoNachtwaechter , 2 months ago

I’ve wondered that in the past

Well, now you have your answers here in all detail, but it seems you didn't read them.

AA5B , 2 months ago

I also wonder the same, and wish you’d point to those answers, but I think that’s what this whole thing is : a day in court to establish those answers

horsey , 2 months ago

I didn't say I was wondering now. I said I was wondering in the past. In any event, i expect to find out from the court case, not online comments from people who probably lack expertise in antitrust law and are not attorneys.

SkyNTP , 2 months ago

Smarter Americans in that past recognized that freedom, including the free market, doesn't just happen of its own accord, that it has to be defended, legislated. That is how antitrust laws came to be in arguably the most capitalist nation on earth.

Apathetic Americans now have lost sight of the importance of protecting their freedoms.

"Illegal" is not just some hypothetical moral absolute. It is the politics of defending one's values. Americans clearly no longer value either their freedoms or the free market.

AA5B , 2 months ago

No, these are not illegal activities until you add “as a monopoly”. Antitrust laws are fine with all sorts of behavior as part of competition but not when you dominate a market and it keeps new competitors out

Everything here will hinge on whether Apple is a monopoly in the markets of concern. I’m sure there are legal definitions and precedents for that.

horsey , 2 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

NeoNachtwaechter , 2 months ago

Because I asked a different question than you asked. How old are you?

dunidane , 2 months ago

It would take a big dose of hopium to believe this will amount to anything.

madeinthebackseat , 2 months ago

The anti-trust pressure has increased with this administration. Lina Kahn has been effective at the FTC in bringing a number of cases forward.

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ is a very well executed newsletter with more detailed information regarding anti-trust if you're interested.

Defaced , 2 months ago

Yeah and hasn't she lost pretty much every case she's brought forward? She failed big fucking time with the Microsoft/Activision merger even though all the antitrust evidence was right in front of her nose. I'm glad the FTC is trying, because they're actually doing their job, but they're doing an awful job when it comes to actually being in court and proving their case.

People shit on Sony for trying to block the merger, but they absolutely were right for trying to block it and now games like starfield, the new Indiana Jones, and probably more in the future will be deliberately left off the PlayStation platform altogether. But that's all okay right? Because now you get call of duty on gamepass!!!!!!! RIGHT????!!?!???!????

anon6789 , 2 months ago

I see a bunch of complaints against Kahn, but I haven't been able to find articles on what she did that someone else would have done to be more effective. I don't normally follow this type of news, so if anyone can point me to some articles, I'd appreciate it.

I've heard a few interviews with Kahn, and she sounds like someone looking to make a difference, so I'd like to cheer her on, but if she's not the right person for the job, it'd be nice to see some examples why. I'd think much could go on to make her lose without it necessarily being due to her actions or inactions.

Defaced , 2 months ago

https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2023/07/18/lina-khans-antitrust-losses-cast-doubt-on-her-sue-dont-settle-philosophy/?slreturn=20240221150002 apparently she's just taking the sledgehammer approach of suing companies instead of working with them to understand their motives and to make reasonable concessions that will benefit everyone. If those concession discussions fail then you sue and have more leverage in your case I guess. Either way, it's a fair criticism IMO, and for the record I'm not really a right leaning individual, I just think she's jumping into lawsuits without doing her homework first.

anon6789 , 2 months ago

Dang paywall. That's at least something I can look into more directly though, so thank you.

Lemmy makes me feel right wing anymore. I think the general news and politics here might be worse than Reddit, which is a shame. There's a lot of things I'd like to learn or discuss, but half the threads might as well be bizarro MAGA rallies with how cultish they get.

I just came back to this post from one on Angela Chao, and just like the last one about that story, people are cheering on this lady's death because they don't like her brother-in-law. I haven't been able to find anything about Angela that would indicate she had it coming, but that isn't stopping anyone. If people have valid criticism of a person or idea, share it. Don't just keep shouting "such-and-such bad!" over and over.

horsey , 2 months ago

It didn’t used to seem that way but some of the discussions I’ve had here are actually worse than reddit recently. Take a discussion about Instagram drug sale spammers. I mean, people selling likely counterfeit “xanax” etc to anyone on social media by spamming. Who would stand up for these scumbags? People on Lemmy, apparently, who consider themselves leftists and communicate like sophomoric 19 year olds. “Drugs should be legalized anyway!” Well, that’s not going to make it legal or safe for addictive drugs to be sold on social media and uh, Xanax is legal. I found discussion of the same article on Hacker News and the difference in quality of comments was vast.

anon6789 , 2 months ago

Lol that's exactly the stuff I mean. Legalize drugs, sure. Make them safe and take the business from cartels. Legalize anonymous strangers selling random chemicals, nah.

It was good maybe the first 3 months of the Great Migration, then had a sharp decline. Those first few months were great.

I'm not here for anyone's militant views on politics, software licensing, diet, or religion. I just tend to avoid most comment sections anymore.

0xD , 2 months ago

It's getting worse and worse, completely agree. The reasonable people are getting pushed out by brainless zombies, just like on Twitter or something.

anon6789 , 2 months ago

We need to work more on getting in the first few comments before they get there. If I come in and hot takes are all I find, I just move on. I'm sure others do the same.

SnipingNinja , 2 months ago

Why are so many people misspelling her surname? Or is the URL to the news article wrong?

anon6789 , 2 months ago

I looked up the difference, and it seems that the majority of us have probably been raised in a place where Kahn is the more common spelling we'd encounter.

NotAGuyInAHat , 2 months ago

I mean the Activision case was a bad case though. Microsoft bought their way into... Third place, it's not enough to need anti trust. Furthermore, Starfield and Indy were already going to be exclusives, those are Bethesda and that acquisition was already long since completed. Plus, it's not like that's the invention of exclusives. Sony isn't exactly pumping over their games to Xbox here.

jabjoe , 2 months ago

Lina Kahn

She was pretty good on Planet Money : https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly

LodeMike , 2 months ago

Substack 🙄

madeinthebackseat , 2 months ago

The content is good, so I support the content.

If all we ever do is hold purity contests over secondary and tertiary concerns, like the platform, we'll never accomplish anything.

LodeMike , 2 months ago

I didn't say anything about the content. Just... Like... Substack 🙄

deweydecibel , 2 months ago

I'm willing to take the movement as a good sign. The fact that we haven't even been talking about this shit for decades now was just depressing. It's long past time for this shit, and the ball needs to get rolling.

AA5B , 2 months ago

There’s a lot of corporate competitive behavior that’s ok, when you’re one of many, that isn’t anymore when you dominate the market.

• Apple hasn’t dominated US cell phone market for decades yet
• the same behavior is perfectly legit for laptops, because Apple is a small player in that market
• Smartwatches are interesting - I don’t know the dynamics of that market but I don’t know anyone whose smartwatch is not Apple

JJROKCZ , 2 months ago

Apple has dominated the smartphone market since the iPhone 5 in the us. I’ve managed my works mdm tool for a decade and never have I seen the android collective share surpass 10% in the pie chart it shows me of versions

AA5B , 2 months ago

Looks like the stats are all over the place but iPhones are about 50% of US market +- 10%. Neither you nor I are representative

JJROKCZ , 2 months ago

Very true, mine is just anecdotal evidence in the end, no matter how much it is

LodeMike , 2 months ago

• Phones haven't been around for decades and that's a dumb point
• They actually don't do the same behavior on macs because it's illegal
• Thank you for demonstrating the case's point.

DingoBilly , 2 months ago

We can hope. Happy to take a chunk out of Apple as they're often given a free pass as their marketing and branding is so good that customers lap it up.

BurningnnTree , 2 months ago

All I want is RCS on iPhone. I know Apple already said they're working on it, but I hope legal pressure like this will force them to make the RCS/iMessage integration actually work well (instead of half-assing it which I assume is what they want to do, cuz they want their users to feel frustrated when texting their Android friends)

AA5B , 2 months ago

All I want is RCS on iPhone

Me too, but isn’t this a chicken and egg situation?

• why should Apple add it if carriers don’t support and you haven’t go through Google if you want secure messaging?
• why should carriers support it if so many phones don’t, and why are they ceding security to Google?
• is not Google also a monopolist?
• is RCS even a useful standard if there’s not a consensus to make it ubiquitous?

neblem , 2 months ago

Can't we just move past carrier managed messaging? I'd rather my telecom to just be dumb pipes and move everyone to Signal and similar.

techwithjake , 2 months ago

The iMessage lock-in is too real for some of us. I know some iPhone users who won't even install FB Messenger (I know, I don't use it either. Fuck the Zuck) because it's not Apple/iMessage. I finally got my family on Signal and "OMG! We can send videos and pictures now!" Yeah, been saying it for years lol.

medicsofanarchy , 2 months ago

Damn, I am stealing this. Too many good uses:

"She lives in a hopium den"

"Hopium addict"

"Hopium of the masses"

thedirtyknapkin , 2 months ago

Oh it's a pretty common Internet thing these days. Hopium and copium.

Brkdncr , 2 months ago

lol this is going to go nowhere

alekwithak , 2 months ago

At least it happened.

ANIMATEK , 2 months ago

I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.

gregorum , 2 months ago

The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.

Little will come of this.

Telodzrum , 2 months ago

SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases -- they don't have the expertise and single-issue cases which don't present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.

gregorum , 2 months ago

And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal

Telodzrum , 2 months ago

Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.

The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.

gregorum , 2 months ago

This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.

Telodzrum , 2 months ago

I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

gregorum , 2 months ago

Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

Source

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Saying one is wrong, or doesn't know what they're talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it's a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they're wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.

gregorum , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

You don’t just say that I was wrong. You used a personal insult, and you even admit that you could have chose too not use an insult but chose to anyway, repeatedly. And, still, rather than use any evidence to make your argument, you can’t stop yourself from continuing to insult and bully.

And YOU don’t get to choose what is insulting to ME. That’s some serious gaslighting DARVO shit.

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/2b0c53b5-dc4e-49a0-a917-d73f340ad8b0.webp

_dev_null , 2 months ago

A personal attack would be more like: "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl."

But nobody has told you that "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl."

If anyone actually did say "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl", then I could understand you taking it as an ad hominem attack.

Alas, I'm glad nobody here is sinking so low as to say to you that "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl."

gregorum , 2 months ago

So, you are so deluded as to think that saying it 4 times in that little tantrum “isn’t saying it”?

I must’ve really upset you, which is ironic, because I was nowhere nearly as offended as you seem to be now. Which actually makes me feel much better. Lol.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

I didn't say “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl” to you, I said I'm glad that nobody said “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl” to you.

Would you like me to say “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl” to you? I don't want to kink shame if that's your bag, you know, people denigrating you and telling you “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl”.

Just let me know, either way.

gregorum , 2 months ago

This is just DARVO, right out of the Narcissist abuser’s handbook

• Step 1. Deny. The process begins with adamant refusal to accept any responsibility or acknowledge having a role or any involvement in the harmful behavior or actions. The truthful account of the events is stridently rejected and minimized. Denial seeks to deflect blame. Consequently, it also implies that it is in fact the perpetrator who is being subjects to an injustice by being wrongly accused of something they did not do. Denial distorts or disregards the reality of a situation.
• Step 2. Attack. The second stage of DARVO involves character assassination with the aim of redirecting blame onto the person who confronted the perpetrator, scapegoating the innocent party and burdening them with accountability for the crimes of the aggressor. By shifting blame away from themselves, manipulators preserve their self-image, reputation, and/or position of power. It shields them from criticism and negative judgment. DARVO attacks often involve victim-blaming, distorting facts, minimizing the impact of their own actions, and exaggerating the faults of whoever confronts the perpetrator. The attack is essentially a smear campaign.
• **Step 3. Reverse Victim and Offender. **Once the character assassination has formed a critical mass of bystanders who are successfully deceived by the manipulator’s false narrative, the victim-survivors is subjects to the painful process of scapegoating. Thus the final stages of DARVO sees the victim cast as a villain, while the perpetrator is exonerated. The reversal of victim and offender relies on pre-existing biases, stereotypes, or prejudices. It is often used to animate bystanders into persecuting and punishing the victim-survivor.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

You shouldn't self diagnose like that, Greg. I'd encourage you to seek professional help to work through any demons you feel you might have.

gregorum , 2 months ago

projection: just another weapon from your narcissist’s abuser’s handbag

_dev_null , 2 months ago

See there you go again, Greg. Best to let the professionals diagnose you. Even doctors go to see other doctors when they have medical concerns about themselves.

gregorum , 2 months ago

I don’t need to own a sports team to know a bad play when I see one, and I don’t need to have a PhD to know when you’re accusing me of the things you are doing.

Wow, you must really be upset to be putting in so much effort and time. Lol, looks like I got the better of you.

I bet I can keep you going all day. But, hey, if I’m wrong, you can just stop… riiight?

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Upset about what, Greg? Would you like me to be upset? Is that another kink you like to indulge in, upsetting others? You really should get consent first if so.

I must’ve really upset you (...) Which actually makes me feel much better

Wait, are you trying to upset me? That's against lemmy.world rules, and c/technology's rule 2.

Last thing too, Greg: Would be great if you stop editing your replies, and also downvoting each of my replies. That's pretty intellectually dishonest, and has a strong smell of arguing in bad faith. Are you trying to argue in bad faith, Greg?

I really don't want to think that you're trying to upset me and argue in bad faith, you know, Hanlon's razor and all.

gregorum , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Ooo, more insults, and now threats? Cheers to your lack of self-control. Go on and keep telling me how upset I’ve made you. I’m enjoying this. Especially how you can’t stop.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Enjoying it so much that you're now reporting my comments as breaking rule 1 and 3, huh?

https://lemmy.zxcvn.xyz/pictrs/image/5b758ec2-46ca-4242-93e1-9f06e1e0a20f.png

Also, might not want to brigade by reporting with your other account @hudson. Did you forget to sign out on that one? Just needed a little more umph and downvoting in this thread? Pretty sure that's against the rules too.

https://lemmy.zxcvn.xyz/pictrs/image/adc58cc7-6c16-49b8-8139-9382e1ea7544.png

Pro tip: If you're going to use a diff account to brigade, you might want to change the profile up a bit so they don't all resemble each other.

https://lemmy.zxcvn.xyz/pictrs/image/eb383f24-cc24-4983-9d31-99a2affe0a9a.png

gregorum , 2 months ago

Heh, paranoia now, too? Just because someone else agrees that you’re breaking the rules ≠ conspiracy. And, apparently I’m the only one with access to AI art generators? But I do think it’s fun that you’re this upset. Paranoia, insults, threats, and now stalking? A bit hypocritical of you, lol. And right in line with DARVO

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/09a422a7-04c6-4ff2-8c91-0fbf56368da5.webp

Go on, tell me more about how upset you are. This is fun.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

So let's tally it up:

• Extremely similar profile aesthetics, down to colors and style

• Same exact account birthdays, 23 Aug 2023

• Similar comment history, also confrontational, and many downvotes from the community

• Both accounts reporting my exact comments, "hudson" sandwiched between your "gregorum" account

• Each of my comments downvoted twice

It's extremely delusional/insulting for you to expect anyone to believe all that's coincidence. Oh the irony of you posting the NP when you can't even come clean when caught in your own lies.

Have you changed your profile pics yet? Are you going to go back and edit your comments more to try and look better for when a mod gets around to your complaints? You are acting so see through right now, and it's not a good look.

gregorum , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Wow. You sure are paranoid, all the way to the point of constructing this elaborate fantasy to justify it. And complete with a narrative of exactly what you would do.

But in not you. If I were, I’d wonder how you got access to the reports that only a mod should see, and you’re not a mod or an instant admin. Curious.

Look how upset and out of control you are, still blaming me for what you did, deflecting and deflecting. Keep telling me how upset you are. This is so much fun.

Don’t forget your prayers!

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/907efa22-ab5f-4626-82ca-7316ec1f91fd.webp

Edit: while I’m sure you’re furiously typing up the next iteration of your ranting reply once again blaming me for why you are a bully who can’t control yourself and the paranoid delusion you’ve invented to justify it, I’m going to exhibit, the self-control of blocking you, because clearly this is just a enabling that delusion to fester and grow.

Good luck to you!

_dev_null , 2 months ago

and you’re not a mod or an instant admin

How do you know?

I bet I can keep you going all day.

I’m going to exhibit, the self-control of blocking you

So another lie. Also, you lose.

L3s Mod , 2 months ago

Yeah, I saw some reports from both accounts yesterday that made it obvious that's their backup account. Also, not the first time they've done this, and they also spam report comments when they get angry.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Thanks for looking and not just zipping by. I'll practice better restrain from feeding the trolls, I don't want to make the mods lives any harder.

L3s Mod , 2 months ago

Hey no worries, appreciate it!

0xD , 2 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

gregorum , 2 months ago

See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.

It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.

namingthingsiseasy , 2 months ago

Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.

Ghostalmedia , 2 months ago

The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.

Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.

n2burns , 2 months ago

If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.

alekwithak , 2 months ago

Because???

n2burns , 2 months ago

If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it's quite possible that it's just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it's still possible it's messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it's more likely they think something's actually there, and they don't want to waste their time playing nice with the "other side".

ColeSloth , 2 months ago

Bet you're not quite right on that.

autotldr Bot , 2 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

---

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit.

It alleges that Apple “selectively” imposes contractual restrictions on developers and withholds critical ways of accessing the phone, according to a release.

“Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others,” the DOJ wrote in a press release.

“For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of ‘Whac-A-Mole’ contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies,” DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.

Apple is the second tech giant the DOJ has taken on in recent years after filing two separate antitrust suits against Google over the past two administrations.

It’s instituted new rules through the Digital Markets Act to place a check on the power of gatekeepers of large platforms, several of which are operated by Apple.

---

The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!