<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>bloppe</author><text>I won&amp;#x27;t argue with the hypothesis at large (even though I hope it&amp;#x27;s unfounded), but as it applies to this particular situation, you&amp;#x27;re ignoring a crucial factor: the gargantuan incentive for monopolists to convince you that their monopolies actually protect you. It&amp;#x27;s incredible how successful Apple has been in convincing their users that freedom is bad, and I&amp;#x27;m absolutely positive it&amp;#x27;s not because Apple is genuinely concerned about society; they&amp;#x27;re concerned about their multi-billion-dollar revenue streams.&lt;p&gt;If we reach a point as a society that we decide we have too much freedom, we should absolutely never let it be regulated by corps with such a perverse incentive.</text><parent_chain><item><author>dane-pgp</author><text>I absolutely agree with you, but here&amp;#x27;s a hypothesis worth considering:  What if we&amp;#x27;re building a society that is so complicated that it just isn&amp;#x27;t feasible for individuals to make informed decisions about important matters any more?&lt;p&gt;Societies have long accepted that things like medical treatments have to be prescribed by an expert, and some societies have even decided that healthy people can be forced to have medical treatments even against their will (i.e. vaccines).&lt;p&gt;My hope is that we are just in a temporary phase, where society has learnt how to transmit information freely but not how to reliably transmit &lt;i&gt;trust&lt;/i&gt;.  If the reputations of software developers and medical practitioners could be established without corporate or government monopolies, then society might get past this local minimum and into a more stable state.</text></item><item><author>MichaelCollins</author><text>The apparent desire for paternalism unnerves me.  Any time people are free to choose who they associate with, they run the risk of coming across bad actors who would scam them or worse.  In most domains of life, we have special protections for the senile elderly and children but everybody else is given freedom and subsequently expected to develop and exercise a sense of good judgement, because freedom is more important than security.&lt;p&gt;But in the specific case of iphones, the argument is made that giving rational level-headed adults the freedom to associate with the software they wish would imperil children and the elderly, and you don&amp;#x27;t have to look far to find somebody arguing that that risk outweigh any other consideration.  If this belief were likely to be limited to iphones I wouldn&amp;#x27;t really care, I&amp;#x27;d simply not buy an iphone.  But I fear special-case exceptions don&amp;#x27;t stay that way forever, and I fear Apple&amp;#x27;s style of paternalism (which is very profitable) will inevitably spread and become difficult if not impossible to avoid unless stomped out soon.</text></item><item><author>bloppe</author><text>It blows my mind how many people have bought into Apple&amp;#x27;s position on this. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. If you&amp;#x27;re not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store. Don&amp;#x27;t demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that&amp;#x27;s how you would like to be treated.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved</title><url>https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/07/18/dma-council-gives-final-approval-to-new-rules-for-fair-competition-online/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>nathanyz</author><text>And on top of this increase in complexity, is a decrease in legal consequences for bad actors taking advantage of this complexity. That is what is going on currently due to how the Internet crosses international borders which makes policing much more difficult for society.&lt;p&gt;It is a difficult conundrum as freedom is definitely something I value, but I think freedom may not be the best solution in a world without legal consequences for those abusing that freedom to take advantage of others.&lt;p&gt;Freedom with no guidelines to prevent use of that freedom to abuse others is not real freedom</text><parent_chain><item><author>dane-pgp</author><text>I absolutely agree with you, but here&amp;#x27;s a hypothesis worth considering:  What if we&amp;#x27;re building a society that is so complicated that it just isn&amp;#x27;t feasible for individuals to make informed decisions about important matters any more?&lt;p&gt;Societies have long accepted that things like medical treatments have to be prescribed by an expert, and some societies have even decided that healthy people can be forced to have medical treatments even against their will (i.e. vaccines).&lt;p&gt;My hope is that we are just in a temporary phase, where society has learnt how to transmit information freely but not how to reliably transmit &lt;i&gt;trust&lt;/i&gt;.  If the reputations of software developers and medical practitioners could be established without corporate or government monopolies, then society might get past this local minimum and into a more stable state.</text></item><item><author>MichaelCollins</author><text>The apparent desire for paternalism unnerves me.  Any time people are free to choose who they associate with, they run the risk of coming across bad actors who would scam them or worse.  In most domains of life, we have special protections for the senile elderly and children but everybody else is given freedom and subsequently expected to develop and exercise a sense of good judgement, because freedom is more important than security.&lt;p&gt;But in the specific case of iphones, the argument is made that giving rational level-headed adults the freedom to associate with the software they wish would imperil children and the elderly, and you don&amp;#x27;t have to look far to find somebody arguing that that risk outweigh any other consideration.  If this belief were likely to be limited to iphones I wouldn&amp;#x27;t really care, I&amp;#x27;d simply not buy an iphone.  But I fear special-case exceptions don&amp;#x27;t stay that way forever, and I fear Apple&amp;#x27;s style of paternalism (which is very profitable) will inevitably spread and become difficult if not impossible to avoid unless stomped out soon.</text></item><item><author>bloppe</author><text>It blows my mind how many people have bought into Apple&amp;#x27;s position on this. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. If you&amp;#x27;re not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store. Don&amp;#x27;t demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that&amp;#x27;s how you would like to be treated.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved</title><url>https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/07/18/dma-council-gives-final-approval-to-new-rules-for-fair-competition-online/</url></story>