[voidwtf]

A. I'm not defending the company, only their right to refuse service under their own terms. B. I think all devices and media legally purchased should be open and able to be modified in both form and function by the owner of said devices or media. C. Being entitled to fully own one's device does not come with an entitlement to utilize online services of a 3rd party.

I understand your position but please try not to put words in my mouth.

[jevoten]

Let me describe exactly how you are defending them then, if you really think you aren't:

"this same expectation in the Apple ecosystem is why I've received single digit spam from their messaging services" implies it can be justified as an anti-spam measure that open services can't match. But I've received also single-digit spam (cumulative over multiple years, not per year) on the WhatsApp running on my rooted Android. Nor would this even hypothetically stop non-RCS spam.

In general, companies always have some convenient excuse to cover their user-hostile moves. HP bricked printers using 3rd party ink for "security". Uncritically believing them, or even inventing excuses for them, is defending them.

"if they don't want rooted phones to use their RCS gateway I don't think they should be forced to allow it" - so we've established these companies are actively hostile to your freedom to use your property as you wish. But you are willing to disregard any monopoly/market-power abuse concerns, and grant them the freedom that they deny you (you used "should", so I assume you're not giving a mere factual description of what you think the law is). Just like letting Bell charge extra for using competitor's equipment [1] has ill effects on the market (try selling a phone when all your customers will have to pay an extra monthly fee to Bell for using it) and was rightly banned, so does letting the Google/Apple duopoly control smartphone software. Saying they should be allowed to continue to abuse and expand their market power is a defense of these companies, or rather, is a defense specifically of their anti-competitive and user-hostile practices.

The difference between a "defense" that merely seeks to correct facts, and one that justifies behavior, can be subtle (e.g. "this is necessary to fight spam" vs. "this was done to fight spam" vs. "there was no other way to fight spam"), but I think your phrasing put you in the latter category.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System#Nationwide_monopol...

Edit as reply: "I think" and "I believe" do not meaningfully change your position. "I think action X is justified because of Y" and "Action X is justified because of Y" only differ in implied certainty, not in quality.

[voidwtf]

You conveniently left out "I think" in the first quote yet speak about subtle differences in phrasing. Please practice what you preach. I stated that I believe Apple's controls have resulted in less spam. Is that a defense of their behaviors? I think they should have opened up standards compliant gateways long ago and put the onus of spam control on the gateway operators with clearly defined repercussions for failure to control spam. I said in another comment I would like something akin to the IANA and BGP model of peering.

Why do we have to be absolutists? Why can't I buy into a platform that has the features I want and not the features that don't matter to me? It really weakens your position when you say "actively hostile to your freedom" yet I could have purchased an unlocked, rootable, Android phone. I even have several older ones in a box, my HTC One M8 was awesome. Guess what I chose in the end? Guess what I've had the best experience with? I am enjoying my freedom. Could it be better? YES ABSOLUTELY! Can we do that without being absolutists in either direction? YES ABSOLUTELY!