[zepto]

The points you were responding to are just rebuttals of your own claims of legal knowledge.

> This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".

Saying my argument is something I didn’t write is just a dishonest and lazy move. What I wrote isn’t code for anything. You seem to be unable to handle my points as they were written.

You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> What I wrote isn’t code for anything.

Since you are not quick on the uptake to figure out what I was saying, I will spell it out explicitly.

When I said it was a "code", I didn't literally mean that you were speaking in code, like some sort of cryptographic secret language. Instead I was making fun of you, for asserting that the laws were illegal, without any actual justification.

You originally stated "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review". And you just asserted it. With no justification.

And then later, when I pressed you on it, your only justification, for why you think these laws are illegal is "That remains to be seen.". Which isn't an argument for why the laws might be illegal.

I was assuming that when you said "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review", that you might actually have a reason for why you think the law is illegal, other than "That remains to be seen.". But I guess I was wrong on thinking that you had a reason.

You had no actual reason or justification, for why these laws could be illegal, even though there are multiple laws, attempting to be passed in all sorts of countries, such as the EU, which you were wrong about.

You just said it was illegal, and said we'll have to wait to find out, lol. Thats not a reason, because you don't have any.

[zepto]

I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time. Remember the proposal hasn’t come before either house yet. Imagining the law is an instantaneous process seems misguided.

So you’ve now wasted comment after comment merely ‘making fun of’ that opinion without adding any substance. I assume that’s because you aren’t really sure of your position.

Perhaps this is just bluster to distract us from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time.

So then you have asserted this, without any reason at all, which was my entire point. You have no reason or justification for thinking that the law is illegal. You just said "Its illegal, and I have no reason why I think that!".

And before you say it, when I said that Quote, I am not literally saying that you said those words, instead I am saying how you didn't give a reason, and just asserted that it was illegal, with no justification.

> So you’ve now wasted comment

When you make a completely unsubstantiated comment, with no justification, it is important to keep it on point, so that you don't just shrug your shoulders and ignore it. Because you have made multiple false statements, and then when I point out the false statements, you just ignore that.

You similarly disagreed with me, that there were other countries trying to pass similar laws, by just saying "no they aren't", when actually they are, and you can easily google these EU laws that people are writing.

When you keep on making completely false statements like that, it is important to point out, so that you are aware of how little you know about this topic.

[zepto]

>> I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time.

> So then you have asserted this, without any reason at all, which was my entire point. You have no reason or justification for thinking that the law is illegal. You just said "Its illegal, and I have no reason why I think that!".

No I didn’t say it’s illegal. Where did I say that?

I said I expect that it won’t pass judicial review. That is what I expect.

> Because you have made multiple false statements, and then when I point out the false statements, you just ignore that.

You haven’t pointed out a single false statement. It seems like you’re just descending into outright lies now.

If you can quote a false statement I made rather that making one up, then I’ll reconsider that opinion.

It seems like you are are just lying to distract from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position.

Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> No I didn’t say it’s illegal

Ok, so expect that it will be declared illegal. As in, "it won’t pass judicial review". That is what I meant by that statement.

I am saying that you are claiming that " it won’t pass judicial review", but you didn't give a reason or justification for why that would be case.

> You haven’t pointed out a single false statement

The most obvious false statement, would be the one that I just quoted of you, in that post. Which would be when you said "no they aren't", in response to me, when I said that other countries were trying to pass similar laws.

A similar law, would be the EU laws that are being written right now. So that is the false statement. It would be how you were not aware of those similar EU laws.

> If you can quote a false statement

The quote is "No they aren't", in response to my statements about these EU laws. I literally quoted that in my previous post.

[zepto]

I’m not ‘claiming’ it won’t pass judicial review. I am stating an opinion. Do you understand that?

I don’t think the EU laws are similar. That is another opinion.

Neither of these statements are false. You may disagree with my opinions but it’s delusional to confuse opinion with fact.

You are lying when you say I’m making false statements. to distract from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position.

Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.