I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile. Is this the “Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs” argument? Never found that persuasive.

Now, reframe as duopoly, and maybe layer in that a platform owner who curates their App Store must allow alternative app stores on equal footing, and I’d be with you.

▲

wat10000 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think companies should be forced to do that in general, but there are some circumstances where I think they should.

A local printing company should not be forced to print things they don't want. But an ISP should be required to transport everything, with exceptions for legal requirements and legitimate network health measures, or get out of the ISP business.

App stores feel more like the latter to me. Especially Apple's where there's no way around it for the average user.

	▲	brookst 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed on the free speech versus common carrier aspects. But I lean the other way with app stores. The companies hire reviewers, the listings appear in the App Store trade dress, it feels more like a museum or magazine than an ISP. But I get how reasonable people can disagree. Maybe we need some formal choices: is this a curated App Store that reflects editorial judgment (in which case it must be possible to ship alternatives on equal footing), or is it a common carrier (in which case you can be the only game in town). The ambiguity doesn’t help, and of course megacorps love shifting the frames depending on context.