such12

Again, a macroeconomic analysis with no explanation of how this is relevant.

> You say I should not be silly but I can believe what I like. Which is it?

They aren’t mutually exclusive.

> The government does not “own assets” on paper but it has a whole lot of influence over agency

Feel free to believe that your agency is under government control.

I agree. I have no argument against this.

Nobody is forced to use gmail as a provider. Remember it’s a free service with less commitment to you than a pay as you go mobile phone.

Anyone can buy their own domain and there are many providers who will provide email service.

I’m aware of Parler, but are there other examples?

> I'm pretty sure this is a carrier feature that hasn't been standardised.

So not actually part of what it means to be a phone then.

> Different phones have different capabilities, what's there to explain?

That your definition of ‘phone’ is meaningless. If phones can have any capability you like, then ‘phone’ doesn’t mean anything.

Once you are playing that game you may as well just declare that social networks can be regulated because they are a ‘capability some things that can also communicate with phones have’, and phones are already regulated.

Anti-spam legislation doesn’t regulate the technology. It legislates the behavior of the spammers.

This is no different from say, assault, which doesn’t regulate hammers and baseball bats, but makes it illegal to hit people with them without their permission.

Don’t be silly. The government doesn’t regulate how these services operate.

If you are going to argue that macroeconomic policy means ‘control’, then the government ‘controls’ everything in everyone’s lives at all times. You are welcome to believe this if you like.

Why? They seem to work fine as they are.

The phone system doesn’t lack regulation. Phone spam is already illegal. The reason for phone/VoIP spam is because the system is too inflexible to make it easy to prevent, and the reason the system is inflexible is that it is regulated.

We already have portability. When you sign up to a new network, you provide your phone number and email address, and your friends can find you.

This sounds like you are simply describing how advertising works. Cattle do not respond to advertising. People do.

Can you give an example of the kind of conflict you thought was pointless? Early TNG seemed like a new age cult to me, and then it became more real without losing the positivity.

That’s exactly why email has persisted, without any need for regulation.

She seems like exactly the kind of user the iPhone lockdown mode is intended for.

Looks like she was using Android.