That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds.
Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs.
Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to studying how that option is presented, and the overall implications of such an option.
The thing is, at some point users must become comfortable with "pedantic permission dialogs." Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working. Since computer users (I include phone users in that definition) can no longer trust software developers (Apple, Meta, etc.) to be ethically trustworthy (think: high-trust society devolving to low-trust society), users must take this burden upon themselves; if they refuse to, then the battle is already lost no matter what globogiantmegacorp "wins."
> Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators.
This doesn't seem reasonable. Let's try to apply the logic elsewhere:
> Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers.
Requiring everyone to have deep technical knowledge about anything they use would prevent everyone from using more than the things they are experts in. So, there needs to be either a technological regression, or something to help defend users from unethical practices. The only entity really in a position to do that is a government, for better or worse.
> Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers.
This is true. If you blindly trust whatever your doctor says, you are going to have a bad time in the current medical system. Doctors are incentivized to push pills because they get kickbacks from the pharma industry. This is pretty well known (https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-prescribe-more-of...)
When it comes to Elective surgeries, perscriptions. etc. you need to do your own research to how these things work and make an informed decision for yourself. Ultimately, if you're an adult, you are responsible for your own body and your own equipment.
It's not a matter of deep technical knowledge, it's shallow technical knowledge and political knowledge of what institutions are trustworthy.
Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter. These businesses make decisions based on data stolen from users. If the data were on paper in a person's home, it would be considered private and inaccessible.
Why should a company decide that they should have access to your every move and every data, just because you purchased something from them? Why should a company decide what you're allowed to do with your device? A business shouldn't be permitted to decide these decisions for you without your fully informed consent.
It's funny, you're first sentence "Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter" to me meant "Apple deciding who can and can not do business with users of iPhones"
The status quo is that Apple has this power on top of the power to collect 30% for all digital transactions (or be denied on the store) and the power to force Apple Pay support to be required (or be denied on the store). Apple also has the power to collect all the data but deny it to others.
That's the status quo that the EU is addressing.
Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above.
>Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above.
In an ideal world that would be great. However, right now it is either Apple of Google when it comes to smart devices for average consumers. Kinda like political dichotomy in US politics.
Democracy will not function with an educated public. And dumbing down choices are just a way to get give power to megacorp and political institutions.
> Democracy will not function with an educated public.
What makes you think that?
> dumbing down choices are just a way to get give power to megacorp and political institutions
Yes, and an educated public would find better ways to convey the same information because they can use their education to build a new thing, or build regulations or laws where they see a need, or build defenses against adversaries without sacrificing privacy. You can't do that with your local public (eg, citizens) if your citizens aren't able to comprehend the problems they're encountering.
> Democracy will not function with an educated public.
What makes you think that?
Sorry now I can't edit the parent comment now. That was miss type (bad keyboard). Meant to say "Democracy will not function with OUT an educated public. Happy New Year!
That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds.
Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs.
Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to studying how that option is presented, and the overall implications of such an option.