[jb1991]

Your tone here does not seem proportionally appropriate to the level of discourse this article is attempting.

The fact of the matter is that computers offer myriad ways to compromise your life and behave maliciously, and avoiding that is a tall challenge for any company. Apple is trying it their way, and you can try it yours. But to call it Stockholm Syndrome is an unfortunate take on these efforts.

[politelemon]

I see little to nothing in the way of discourse. Much like HN over the past few days, it's mostly a hand waving away of the reality that has always existed beneath the exterior. What doesn't help is that it's the nature of humans to fervently defend the ecosystem they've invested in.

We at HN like to hold ourselves apart from other communities, but is merely an echo chamber for what gp refers to.

Alright, let's not call it Stockholm syndrome. A "collective hypocrisy" would be more appropriate.

[arvindamirtaa]

> Alright, let's not call it Stockholm syndrome. A "collective hypocrisy" would be more appropriate.

Apple is so awesome, they have already come up with the perfect phrase you can use to describe them. It's "Reality distortion field".

[fauigerzigerk]

>Your tone here does not seem proportionally appropriate to the level of discourse this article is attempting.

You mean this level of discourse?

>The privacy squad mobilised on this one - in fact, one blog post recieved a lot of attention for decrying such systems with the dogwhistle "you no longer own your computer!"

[jb1991]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25095110

[jhardy54]

Can you explain why? You've offered assertions but haven't explained why you feel that way.

[zepto]

It’s a form of bulverism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

[jb1991]

I don't follow... what did you want me to explain and what assertions are you referring to. If you mean, the assertion that Apple users are suffering Stockholm Syndrome is an inappropriate discourse, I'm not sure how to better explain that.

[jhardy54]

Maybe you could start by why you think it's inappropriate?

[coldtea]

Because it's a "mass psychology" BS explanation based on the premise of "others are misguided/idiots/sheep/Stockholmed and I know the truth/true freedom" - as opposed to a good faith argument, understaning that it's an ideological preference and that others (including people with 10 times the degrees, career experience, computer science knowledge of the author, can think otherwise).

If that very basic thing needs to be spelt out, I'm not sure how any discussion is possible...