Yes, but governments are or should be accountable to the state, which imposes rules thereby verified and rattified by civil society and their representatives.

Second point, though weaker on its own merit, is that the State's primary objective is to improve the commonwealth by acting as proxy to the collective effort, regulating compromise etc which are paternalistic without a doubt.

Private corporations exist for entirely different reasons though this probably wasn't always the case. In our world, corporations can make massive losses, have no working product, or be of such marginal value and yet be valued for billions by speculators in the free market. Its all random and irrational. States cannot operate like that.

The difference between the State and the Private Company is that citizens vote for the State, and Legislators (the "paternalizers") are directly installed by the voters.

The iPhone buyer does not get a say in the development staff or direction at Apple.

My government intends to be "Of the people, for the people, by the people". Imagine if Apple every single year had elections at every level of their company! Vote for your local support representatives. Vote for your local b+m store management. Vote for executive staff. Etc etc.

But until Apple does that, there is literally no fair comparison with paternalism in state and private industry.

Elections != democracy. Or even representation.

Apple has a certain awareness of public opinion and user mood. It isn't obliged to pay attention to either, and of course it also tries to control both through PR efforts.

But if it ignores or irritates its users too much there are financial consequences.

Meanwhile you can be sure forums like HN are monitored for sentiment.

> But if it ignores or irritates its users too much there are financial consequences.

I believe they very much know what their users want and are giving it to them

That's why they are so successful.

And what their users want is a device to support their paternalism.

I've never witnessed so many judgments against elderly or people that are a bit of techno illiterate (a bit is enough) as I have in discussions about Apple.

The baseline is always of two types:

- they are easy to operate, so even my [insert moms, dads, granpas etc here] can use them

- I would never let my [insert moms, dads, granpas etc here] use an open device where they can get viruses that then I have to fix (like fixing something for your family is some kind of punishment, they did it for me repeateadly when I was younger!)

And i think it's a bit naive to think that people supporting the idea that Apple knows better are in good faith and are not doing it because they like the control too and to be "influencers" (with many quotes) in their inner circles.

I would never think that my parents who raised me and made me what I am are incapable of understanding basic safety rules on the Internet once explained to them (safety rules that anyway protect them from something that don't kill people, it simply kills the battery of the device)

> Meanwhile you can be sure forums like HN are monitored for sentiment.

I'm sure they do.

One interesting other thing that we can be sure and I didn't think possible is that there are people monitoring this forums as well with enough karma to downvote, that not only downvote your posts in a discussion, but go back to yout history and downvote older posts as well.

It just happened to me, I had posts from yesterday and two days ago downvoted right now by the same people that downvoted me in this thread.

I don't know if HN can do something about it or not, but for starter disallowing voting on older submissions that users have not shown interest on could help (it should be easy to check which submissions users have opened, when, how many times and for how long to establish if they are genuinely interested in the topic)

Aren't you voting with your wallet when you voluntarily buy an Apple product?

I am familiar with the saying, however, in this case, voting for government officials and creating a "demand" datapoint in markets by completing a purchase are not synonymous.

When we go to the polls, we are literally making decisions about what you call "paternalism". Who should write our laws? Who should manage our criminal justice system? Who should regulate our industries? These are pretty direct decisions to make.

But when we go to Best Buy or Apple Store to buy an iDevice, almost all consumer are not making a decision about the "paternalistic" decisions of Apple, who they employ, etc. They are buying a shiny object that makes their brain give them the happy juice.

I fear for our society if these two actions become one and the same.

You need to step back one more level from "The iPhone buyer does not get a say" to "The phone buyer does get a say"; buy an iPhone or buy an Android device if you have an issue with their business arrangements.

"They are buying a shiny object that makes their brain give them the happy juice."

That doesn't sound unlike many voters of all sorts to me!

I personally believe that it is naive to think that Apple cares what consumers think as they have enough money to take $0 from consumers for say 30 years straight and be fine. They are post-capitalist.

I understand that in an ideal market, a business has to react to demand. That in many industries, if you don't do what the customer wants, the customer leaves.

I do not think Apple operates in that world or by those rules.

Apple doesn't care what you think and they don't care if you buy their products.

Ironically, the only way you might get Apple to change isn't with your wallet, it's with your government. EU notching wins against Apple bad practices on behalf of Apple's European customers that their wallets never won them.

Not really

It was 6 centuries ago, when it was first invented, it has a much broader meaning now.

Anyway Apple is State and Government in Apple ecosystem

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/#Intr

> The civil law does not allow the enforcement of certain kinds of contracts, e.g., for gambling debts. It requires minors to have blood transfusions even if their religious beliefs forbid it. Persons may be civilly committed if they are a danger to themselves.

Doctors do not tell their patients the truth about their medical condition. A physician may tell the wife of a man whose car went off a bridge into the water and drowned that he died instantly when in fact he died a rather ghastly death.

A husband may hide the sleeping pills from a depressed wife. A philosophy department may require a student to take logic courses.

A teacher may be less than honest about telling a student that he has little philosophical ability.

All of these rules, policies, and actions may be done for various reasons; may be justified by various considerations. When they are justified solely on the grounds that the person affected would be better off, or would be less harmed, as a result of the rule, policy, etc., and the person in question would prefer not to be treated this way, we have an instance of paternalism.

As the examples indicate the question of paternalism is one that arises in many different areas of our personal and public life