I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

What about a small, local ISP? Should they be able to refuse to provide service? At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

▲

TZubiri 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

A small local ISP serving a small area would be a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Usually it is agreed that sometimes the infra costs are high, so there cannot be two or more competitors, so they are granted a monopoly in exchange for fulfilling the duty to serve the community.

▲

anal_reactor 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them.

> At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

At a size when the society starts depending on your service for daily functioning. When it becomes essential. For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.

▲

SirMaster 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.

But is everyone entitled to have a business? Is that written in the country's laws somewhere that everyone must be allowed to have a business?

▲

Workaccount2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them.

I think you are mistaking the market for the people. The market is a natural manifestation of what people want. If people want high social class drivers and are willing to pay for it...taking away the option is not going to make them not want those drivers.

This a myopia similar to the war on drugs. The government thought regulating the drug market (that is, total ban) would make people not want to do drugs. We all know how well that worked out.

The market is the messenger, don't shoot it.

▲

pixl97 2 days ago | parent [-]

>The government thought regulating the drug market (that is, total ban) would make people not want to do drugs

Eh, that is what was sold to the mainstream idiot. The 'war on drugs' has almost always been a fight against immigrants and minorities. The free market doesn't solve racism against minorities.

	▲	Workaccount2 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The prohibition then if that one is easier to grasp. Same deal. It didn't stop anyone from liking alcohol, and just swept it all under the rug.

▲

Hizonner 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

There was a time when if you served "Negroes" at your soda fountain, you could expect the market to punish you. You'd lose your white customers, who had a lot more money to spend at soda fountains.

It took a whole lot to change over to a world where doing the opposite would lead to market "punishment", and it's not obvious that it wouldn't be damned easy to change back.

Get out of fantasyland and stop worshipping the market. It's not a benevolent god.