> Try asking anyone not in the top 5% of the worlds wealth if a gaming console and a smart phone are of comparable importance. Then, ask them if smartphones and consoles should be afforded similar consideration and protections by their society.
You're not directly addressing the argument. Literally nobody here suggested that they are of comparable importance. Everyone concedes that smartphones are far more "important" than gaming consoles. The argument is that the "importance" of smartphones today is an ephemeral condition. You yourself agreed that basing policy on ephemeral trends is probably not a good idea, so the best way for you to stay internally consistent is to prove that this is somehow not an ephemeral norm.
> The rest of your argument, seems to be that "the market will sort it out" and any interference with the space will stifle growth and innovation. Maybe. But I'm sorry, that's not a universal "first principle", that's an opinion. My opinion is that smart legislation could actually accelerate growth and innovation while at the same time enhancing user freedoms and protections. But that's getting off track and wasn't the point I was making:
No, the central argument is that the current reality has only been true for our original choice. You might have a good point to make if consumers originally expected to have some level of control over their Apple phones, but people explicitly signed up for the opposite of that — we've always known that the walled garden was a part of the deal. You might also have a good point to make here if there was no alternative in the market, but just like PC's and Consoles, there is a more than acceptable alternative that's conveniently also cheaper and more within reach for the "non-5%". The entirety of the worlds knowledge, the ability to communicate with anyone in the world, and the deeply intimate thoughts / ideas are equally accessible on both platforms, and switching between the two is fairly straightforward considering most major services are provided on both platforms, and the credentials you would use to access your bank account or your medical records or your email work on both types of apps.
> Equating smartphones with gaming consoles is as intellectually lazy as it is troubling.
Again, you're really not addressing the central argument, and you're relying on insults to make your point. The central argument is that while there is undeniably an "importance gap" between the two, we ought to apply the same principles because the gap is ephemeral. If you really believe that the current norms are NOT ephemeral, make that case, you might even have a good point. But you don't need to attack the people making the argument, which undermines your case (and yes, calling an argument "lazy" and "ridiculous" and "troubling" is just a thinly veiled attack on the person).