This post is brought to you by the ifunny.co gang 🔥🔥😤😶‍🌫️😤🍃👺👺🔥

If the court certified a class of people alleging a claim against Apple based on damages incurred as a result of the AirTag products, the case, at the very least, deserves to be heard on its merits.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable that something like this would go to trial. The questions of what statutes, if any, has Apple violated and what liability Apple should hold deserve to be answered in a court of equity.

Now whether the final ruling will be fair and just depends on your view of our system of civil courts and the doctrine of stare decisis.

Think of it this way; if the court agrees with you, then there is precedent set that implies corporations may not have liability under a set of circumstances similar to the ones described in this article. There are broader implications of the question that go beyond Apple.

Unfortunately, people like froghorse are nothing new and they probably won’t be going anywhere. They are the manifestation of societal ennui and lack of empathy. They prefer their false reality over the one we’re forced to share with them.

People taking their needed medication aren’t at fault for the predatory systems that control distribution and pricing. The blame falls on the institutions that fail us, not on the properly medicated.

I think that many users on here are clearly biased and will make arguments defending this aspect of the Fediverse because the users of the Fediverse likely skew on the “techy” side of things. Many times, when I see critiques of this platform that hold it back from being more accessible, I often see replies with some variation of “good, if it’s too easy then we’ll get those people”.

I think it’s an arrogant attitude that stems from a pointless sense of elitism over people who don’t have the same perceived level of technical skills. There are small, non tech and non political communities on the fediverse that will struggle to grow because of how unapproachable the Fediverse is and because of the gatekeeping that awaits them.

People visit content aggregators for two primary reasons: 1. Curated and personalized content delivery and 2. Social engagement. For both of those to work, you need people to continuously interact with the platform. That means you need users and you want them to be engaged. If it becomes difficult for people to get the platform to deliver on reason 1 and reason 2, people will lose motivation to engage. And no, people will not care if they can “easily” create a new account on another server to visit an instance that is now blocked because an admin of the server they joined (which, for most new users, is probably whichever they are presented with first) decides to take it upon themselves to make some big moral statement.

I disagree that the majority of people want choices, at least when it comes to social media. The vast majority of social media users want to be where the user base is at. For Lemmy to be the more attractive option, it either needs to have do similar numbers to it’s competitor or offer something very unique and useful that the others don’t.

And I say this as someone who has been much happier on Lemmy than I have been the last few years on Reddit.

Please let this pass and kick in after I get my grad school loans… haha.