[sneak]

> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it.

The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense.

It is not the state's place to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to buy.

[burnte]

> The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense.

Remember Silk Road? You could order cocaine, heroin, and even execution contracts, which the founder himself go caught doing. I don't think making something illegal to buy is authoritarian nonsense. I don't want people ordering a murder on me from Uber Hits.

[kergonath]

> It is not the state's place to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to buy.

You will always find people willing to spend money on anything. The whole point of politics is that we have to draw a line between what people want to do and the effect that it can have on other people. To put it simply, if your freedom affects mine, then someone needs to decide how far you can go and how much I have to accept.

We commonly accept that scams are bad, even though someone might participate willingly, just because it is much more likely that someone is taken advantage of in a way that most people find immoral, for example. Even in bastions of free speech such as the US. That someone somewhere knowingly gave money to someone else is neither here nor there.

[mocamoca]

That is quite a libertarian point of view, and Europeans tend to disagree with it.

The most extreme example could be the legislation on weapons. A less extreme example could be legislation on food additives or PFAS.

[koyote]

The most extreme example would be child prostitution or child porn, in my opinion. But I guess it would be authoritarian to deny people from purchasing such services/items???

[sneak]

The former directly infringes on the rights of someone else, so it's a bad example.

[sneak]

In Europe you can still buy cigarettes everywhere, and gamble in most jurisdictions.

QED, Europeans don't tend to disagree with the basic principle of letting people buy things to harm themselves and those around them.