| then why did it get so many comments? you seem to be protecting people from discussing what they want to discuss in addition, I wrote 2 first comments asking people to focus on a deeper conversation and my focus was both in my forcefully changed title and in my first article-like comment that what is actually happening is attacking web capabilities the first 2 comments were mine, an article and an ask towards the community to discuss things on a higher level (tech, legal) and forget these emotional outbursts that I hate pwa and I just dont want you to install another browser and that oh I love my walled garden because peopel just can use Safari with its protections even if my thread was also flooded with not too deep comments, I think shadow banning was uncalled for! nobody changed the misleading title here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386569 dma did not kill anything whereas my title true: I am pissed, Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B tax revenue |
To use this article as an example, you say you want to see a higher level discussion about the legal and technical aspects. A proper legal review of Apple's DMA position vs. the actual regulation text would definitely be fascinating to read and new information we haven't already seen multiple times. I'd totally upvote that. Maybe there's even a chance that such an article would lead to the higher level discussion you ask for. But it doesn't feel like that's at all what the article is? There's no analysis, just an assertion that this breaks the spirit and the letter of the law.
(I don't know anything about the various grivances you listed. I was just replying to agust since they were under the false impression that dupes were only for exact submissions of the same article.)