[ashtonkem]

Starbucks probably has a larger share of the coffee market than Apple does of the computing market.

Either way, Apple selling a bunch of stuff gives you no right to access their equipment. Nor does it make giving the government the right to reach in and compel Apple to do business with people and entities they don’t want to. That’s authoritarian, and if you think that won’t be abused by a later administration, I’m not sure what you’ve been paying attention to for four years.

If you think Apples so big that they have too much influence, then what you need is antitrust law, not the first amendment.

[read_if_gay_]

> If you think Apples so big that they have too much influence, then what you need is antitrust law, not the first amendment.

I agree. I was just taking issue with your analogy because your app getting banned from App Store isn't comparable to getting banned from the local Starbucks. On multiple levels. Acting like it is is misrepresenting the issue.

[ashtonkem]

But here's the rub. You don't have an affirmative right to either Apple or Starbucks. If your behavior gets you kicked out of either, that's on you. Companies have the right of free association too, and while you can complain when you're on the short end of that stick, your rights have not been violated.

Pretending that anyone has a right to either is not only entitled nonsense, it's downright authoritarian. What is being advocated here is that the government should come in and force Apple to do business with fascists and terrorists against their will. Even if you imagine that this will encourage "free speech", and I promise you it will not, this is a power that will come to haunt us all if you give it to the government.

[read_if_gay_]

Compared to the power that the ability to arbitrarily deplatform people is giving to effective monopolies like Twitter, I'd definitely rather have the government be able to force companies to do business with anyone. There's clearly less potential for abuse in the latter.