[BigJono]

Why does something need to be a "fundamental right" to be worth protecting? Huge swathes of the population have been using operating systems on personal computers mostly the same for thirty years. How does it benefit society for one or two companies to build a moat then go to the casino and bet the entire industry on black?

Microsoft isn't Uber. Their moat is decades of work on kernels, drivers and backwards compatibility that can't be replicated overnight by a competitor. If they self-immolate to chase some idiotic AI/cloud fad, that does a large amount of real economic damage.

I don't even know if I want any regulations in the tech industry, especially after all the e2e encryption bullshit everyone (especially my country's government) is trying to pull. But if I did, this would be right at the top of the list for risk/reward. If cloud sync and AI are so good then sell cloud sync and AI, don't risk established markets to try and flog it off on people that don't want it with dark patterns.

[_heimdall]

It doesn't have to be a fundamental right, that's just roughly where I have found the line to be for me. There are always exceptions and I'm sure there are things I think are worth protecting, but I do keep a pretty high bar.

I don't see something like an operating system nearly on the level of worth protecting for a couple reasons. Humans can live just fine without operating systems and computers, and we can certainly live with or without support for local accounts. Additionally, there are other operating systems to choose so even if that's a red line for someone consumers still have options.

I can say I'd have less opposition to such specific laws if they came with an expiration date. At least in the US we don't do that and we end up with an ever growing list of laws that are either irrelevant or out of touch with future generations' morales or ethics.