There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in your comment. Both Apple and government are simply a bunch of individuals. The difference is which group contains individuals that will use violence against people to get its way regardless of the people's consent.

The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.

And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do.

There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders.

Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.

The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that.

Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.

Elections aren't an election of anyone's consent to be governed.

You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.

You are not free to leave the country, unless you are willing to spend your time in between borders. Many people are not as privileged as you are, for example I need a visa to go anywhere in the world. And the elections may seem like freedom, but usually you have to choose between multiple sides of the same evil :P </rant>

You are usually free to leave your country (the GDR likely being one of the few exceptions…), but other societies obviously have the right to reject you entry into their countries. And if you don’t like the choices you have at your elections, nominate yourself.

> You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.

You are free to avoid me killing you. Just leave your house and never come back so I can live in your house in peace. Ridiculous logic.

Ah, yes, the old Don't want to be nannied from cradle to grave? Well, here's your ticket to Somalia! routine. One of my all-time favorite thought-stopping arguments.

> The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections.

At best, that just renews the consent of those who do consent. If I didn't vote, or voted for the losing candidate or option, then I am still governed despite not consenting.

"Consent of the governed" refers to consent of the polity (by some form of majoritarian process), not to individual consent. Individuals do not have the unrestricted option to remove themselves from society; universal consent is unnecessary, unworkable, and undesirable.

> "Consent of the governed" refers to consent of the polity (by some form of majoritarian process), not to individual consent.

That's precisely my point. It's a linguistic trick to make it sound like an exchange is justified despite there not actually being consent. The analogy would be Apple forcefully taking x hundred dollars from you, giving you an iPhone, then saying the exchange is justified because 50.1% of the smartphone market consensually buys iPhones. (I made up that number, obviously.)

Nobody alive today has ever consented to government. There is no negotiation. "Consent of the governed" is sophistry.

The people have the right to vote in whatever government they want. If that right is abridged or taken away, they can kill the people doing that until the right is restored.

That is the consent of the governed.

No, that's still just consent of those who consent.

From time to time people withdraw that consent, like in the Ukraine at the moment.

And yet, they're still governed, and you can bet they will still be governed after this struggle is over.

Just to be clear, you want the government to protect you from games that are really, 100% free, but provide IAP for additional things that might enhance your enjoyment of the free game.

Seriously, take some responsibility.

I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all. I don't use mobile phone apps, so I don't know much about that market.

If products are being sold deceptively, there's a public interest in preventing that. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.

> I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all.

So? That's part of the conversation? Either join in or leave.

> If products are being sold deceptively

They aren't. They are free. Money doesn't exchange hands. You are getting a game you can play for free.

You said "[j]ust to be clear, you want the government to protect you". I clarified your misconception. The hostile attitude is unwarranted.

Alternatively: Me leave? After you, pal.

As to your second point: The product being sold in question is the in-app purchase, not the original app. The app, however, could be part of a deceptive marketing practice.

Not being a citizen of a EU member state nor an expert in its legal system, I am content to leave this decision up to its regulatory apparatus. If the citizens of any EU member country are dissatisfied, they can elect governments that will leave the union, or elect Members of European Parliament that will change the rules.