[gretch]

I think it’s weird that governments would regulate a company on behalf of this reason.

A bunch of teens got together and decided that some things were social stigma aren’t.

I’m sure there’s some schools where you can’t be included unless you are wearing Abercrombie clothing, or have a MK purse. Is it time to step in there too?

[lynndotpy]

> A bunch of teens got together and decided

No, they did not. There is no teenage illuminati pulling the strings. The green bubble phenomena appeared throughout teen social life as iPhones became widely adopted.

> I’m sure there’s some schools where you can’t be included unless you are wearing Abercrombie clothing, or have a MK purse.

These are imagined phenomena which don't have bearing on the real phenomenon in question.

> Is it time to step in there too?

No. If there comes a time where Abercrombie and control widely used social infrastructure, in a way that prohibits non-Abercrombie wearers from participating through technological means, resulting a widely-acknowledged negative social phenomenon, then that'll be time to step in there.

But the Abercrombie thing is imagined, and the iPhone thing is real and has been happening for a decade.

[gretch]

I assure it is not imagined as I attended public high school in the United States.

[lynndotpy]

Was I wrong to interpret the phrasing "I’m sure there’s some schools" to imply you were assuming the existence of these schools?

I'm sorry that was your experience, but it's not a widespread phenomenon like the green bubble phenomenon is.

[mopenstein]

When a person or entity doesn't do what you want, of course it's time to send in the goons to force them to behave.

What's the point of having the goons if you're not going to use them?

[skulk]

I'm having a really hard time understanding the point of your comment. Let's peel back a layer of sarcasm here, evidenced by your use of the word "goons."

You think it's wrong for the state to enforce a rule that prevents a certain type of behavior. Where does that end? Unsanctioned violence? Environmental destruction? Surely you're not advocating for anarchy.

Ok, so you agree with reasonable limits on the power of these "goons." Do you then think Apple's behavior simply doesn't warrant this kind of enforcement? Why not just say that instead, and explain why?

Spewing random sarcastic libertarian screeds just makes the whole discussion worse.