[jfim]

> This sets a dangerous precedent for selective enforcement of ToS really

Companies can enforce their terms of service as they see fit, including enforcing them selectively or not at all, with very few limitations. They're not bound by precedent as courts would be, nor do they need to be fair.

[matthewdgreen]

Leaving aside the obvious governmental influence in this “private company’s decision”, we, as a democratic society, have the right to decide when and if the two major smartphone OS makers have the right to ban apps. We even have the right to decide whether those exclusive app stores should exist. Whatever I thought about this matter before, my feelings are different after this decision.

[vorpalhex]

Do we, a democratic society, have a right to pick your breakfast?

Can we force you into a career?

Can we force you to right a book?

What if you work with a few people? Can we compel you to right a book then?

What if you work with a lot of people, a few thousand? Can we make you write a book in that case?

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>Do we, a democratic society, have a right to pick your breakfast?

Well, you can pick your friends. And you can pick your nose.

But you can't pick your friend's nose. In a democratic society, that is.

[int_19h]

Corporations are creations of a democratic society. A corporate charter is granted. As such, it can and does come with strings attached, which can include rules such as "you are not allowed to do this", so long as rules and their conditions are uniformly applied.

[sixothree]

> Do we, a democratic society

Can we say that if we only have two app stores and both are controlled by the government?

[Anonbrit]

Should that be true for a monopoly service though? I don't believe it's true for water, electricity companies. It's not tried for health insurance companies under the ACA. Are we teaching the point where technology should be treated similarly?