Google's app store is NOT comparable to "just any other store" because it is a quasi monopoly, which was my point in the first place. Therefore different rules (should) apply. How are you not getting this?
Well... if walmart was by vast majority the only store present in any town and the vast majority of people are only able to shop there, it would of course be a problem too and would need regulation just the same.
"[...] is why you end up with legislation written by lobbyists"
no, it is not.
Stating "uh the details of this are complicated, lets not do this" gets us nowhere. Following that logic you cannot have any laws at all.
" Say that one of the rules is [...]" Strawman.
Extra app stores are the answer to everything? Wow ;)
I never said that gov. regulation is the answer to everything. But in this case it is. That the US gov might act wrong in this case is a completely different issue.
>>No, it's not irrelevant.
Yes it is.
>> It's only illegal [...]
It is illegal to abuse the monopoly position. Which IS what google is doing. Googles app store is NOT just another store. Monoplies need special regulation and special oversight.
>> They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification.
It's the same as with internet explorer on windows back in the day. google play is preinstalled so that is what the majority of users use. it IS a quasi-monopoly. and with this, googles freedom to choose not to sell a particular app is gone.
Official app stores are quasi-monopolies and need government control.
Think about all the time and work the developer has invested. And can't be possible for google to effectively keep him from selling the app just because they feel like it. If they have an app distribution monopoly, developers have a right to publish their app there. It is not a favor google grants. This is something laws have to enforce as companies like google demonstrably harm this right on their own. It's either this or opening up the app store concept.
Don't. The (programming) world isn't perfect and trying to protect him from anything "confusing" or bad will not help him in the long run. Instead, explain. If you don't have a good answer, research the reasons. Getting to know and working around (or with) the quirks of the system is important. Don't take that away from your son.
I fail to see the legitimate reason software assisted weapons or mass surveillance tech have to exist. Enlighten me? See my other reply below for your relativation fallacy.
>where you draw the line
I don't see this as a problem. The goal is to discuss and voice a common moral standard for CS. The idea worked well for doctors.
I like the idea of an oath like this and also thought about creating something a bit similar.
Maybe you could call it a "Hippocratic Oath of Computer Science".
I think it should be extended to all computer scientists not just programmers (or maybe even all of science).
Some things in the oath should be a lot more explicit and more strict in my opinion.
For example creating or helping create weapons or surveillance technology should be strictly forbidden.