When people try to quit they pile on the pressure. Guilt, threats to pass on costs, lies about contracts
Drop off 3 copies of a letter of resignation in a sealed envelope to HR, to your boss, and to their manager, and then be out of the building and away from that place before any of the envelopes get opened.
I really can't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to actually pay someone to inform an employer that you're quitting.
Yeah... doesn't make sense to me either. Would be more sensible to be able to hire someone to be able to represent you at performance reviews or in conducting research and providing an on-site service to help negotiate for higher pay or enhanced benefits on your behalf with your boss
- as your personal representative and expert in the industry (Since you as an individual employee are at a disadvantage without the ability to bring in provable information or expertise on the current markets for talent) ---- At least that way you could maybe recoup the $$$ and it could be a beneficial service -- just saying "You quit" or dropping off a resignation letter are so trivial that paying a 3rd party a high fee is ridiculous.
So, the problem will be solved when the Soyuz undocks.
Perhaps.... given the stakes involved; I wonder why (even while docked) the Soyuz pressurized environment wouldn't be kept ordinarily separated from the station's pressurized environment to minimize potential for a catastrophic leak from one craft affecting the entire station's, especially while they are sleeping on station...
Right but if you stop suddenly in front of someone you're an ASSHOLE. Don't blame people for being frustrated with assholes in traffic.
The traffic laws say that everyone has a legal duty to observe a minimum safe following distance to the car in front of you at all times, Because it is legal for the car in front to slow down or stop for safety reasons or no obvious reason at almost any time unless on a railroad track or similar zone marked no stopping for safety ---- which can be as simple as a wasp or insect interfering with the driver's ability to steer, a pedestrian unexpectedly walking out, or as complex as a tire failure or unsecured load falling off a vehicle ahead, And you in the back have absolutely no way of knowing for sure at any time whether or not a necessary reason for suddenly slowing or stopping may affect a vehicle ahead of you... They're not being bad or naughty or "An ASSHOLE" for stopping if there is any concern whatsoever that would warrant such a cautionary step.
There are plenty of good reasons for slowing or stopping suddenly, including: (1) To avoid an unexpected obstacle, (2) To avoid or mitigate a risk of colliding with something ahead or conflicting, (3) To avoid or reduce a violation Or to slow or delay reaching a point-of-no-return b/c of confusion regarding navigation or what lane you'll be required to be in.
So if I get a ticket for Texting while Driving do I submit the ticket to my employer
Generally your employer is not responsible for covering your ticket fine: even if you are driving a company vehicle. That is... if the ticket is a moving violation, and not expired inspection sticker or invalid tags, since those fines ultimately go against the property owner, not the driver. Parking violations you cause in a company are also your responsibility, even though if you fail to pay -- it's the vehicle's owner they will go after.
Since knowledge workers are generally exempt employees (outside of contractors) then they're not going to be paid overtime for their emails.
This means they can leave the office early though, Or arrive late - so as to offset their increase in time from commute e-mails with a reduction in office time --- and still legitimately say they've worked 40 or more hours each week, therefore: no PTO subtractions.
It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. If your lane is clear, you can turn into that lane safely because no one should be entering into it.
In most states it is legal to change lanes in an intersection, unless its a crossroads with solid lines between each lane. If you turn suddenly in front of a vehicle changing lanes, that is one of rare situations where you can be found at fault, since you made an illegal turn in front of a vehicle -- even if the collision is you getting a rear-end collision..
50 percent of potential customers "are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider."
WTF? Has the government been proceeding with their ears plugged for the past decade? The whole issue is The last mile problem
A competing provider is not going to travel Half a Mile to try and grab another provider's customers ---- buildout is so extremely expensive that typically there is a tacit agreement between so-called "competitors" that they will stay away from other providers' turf.
Just TRY and get a cable company to service you whose nearest line is 1/2 a mile away. Extending service by 1/2 mile of thickline is something like $30,000+ in a suburban/rural area, and potentially half a million or more in build costs to run the additional cable in an urban area ---- thus they aren't inclined to build, especially when the consequence is violating a de-facto unwritten informal but anti-competitive agreement b/w neighboring providers that risks causing revenue loss from losing other customers.
Surely the OS is providing standard access to every FS, so from an application perspective everything looks the same.
That is correct. From an application perspective everything SHOULD look the same regardless of the underlying filesystem --- filesystem parameters are chosen by the sysadmin, and the vast majority of Linux commonly used filesystem types provide the exact same common functionality and reliability to userspace applications with some oddball exceptions such as NFS, Smbfs/CIFS, some FUSE-based filesystems such as SSHFS - where there may be performance or locking issues with multiple-user access, or they may not fully support Linux permissions model or advanced features such as POSIX ACLs. As a client/end-user application, you should be sitting entirely in userspace and not even have a legitimate reason for peeking at what the kernel version or various mounted filesystems and FS types are.
From a system administration perspective, each filesystem has special characteristics, and some of them like BtrFS are a beauty to use because of their greatly improved management capabilities, self-healing, and snapshots for backup, but apps should never notice the difference.
Most end-user applications should probably not care about the Init system. Linux is designed so that only major system services run as daemons and require Init management, so as long as you're building a client application - you are working in userspace, therefore, there shouldn't be any "system services" that you run.
Agreed.... Every nation should implement this border control ASAP. Any nation that conceals or refuses to join a mutual relationship sharing data, samples, etc about any active pathogens or vaccine data with all nations/health agencies requesting should have a restriction against travel through other countries until the situation is remedied.
Others make the argument that it's the same thing as yelling "fire!" in a movie theater
and not protected free speech.
ALL speech is protected speech. The first amendment doesn't say "shall not abridge..... EXCEPT (something)"
Yelling "Fire" in a theatre is not protected because yelling ANY WORD in a theatre is not allowed -- the restriction is not one regarding the content of a message --- The word "Fire" in particular is not restricted, but the act of yelling a word or signal in general falsely suggesting danger with the intended purpose of inciting fear or panic can be a crime. There is no basis for comparison between that situation and publishing plans on the internet
Because 3D plans are routinely published on internet websites -- the medium is designed for it; they're not out of place in any way, and the distribution of plans on the internet does not create any kind of civil disturbance or disruption interfering with anyone.
The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them...
It is legal to manufacture guns. Instead of an affirmative right to manufacture guns existing: the federal government doesn't have within its enumerated powers a capability to ban the private manufacture of guns --- although they can regulate the manufacture related to interstate commerce; the federal government doesn't have the authority to restrict individuals manufacturing firearms for their own personal use, and they don't even attempt to (no law on the books prohibits this).
This injunction isn't a violation of the 2nd amendment: It's a breach of the 1st amendment rights of Defense Distributed.
preliminary injunction continuing a prohibition on the Trump administration proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns, untraceable weapons
The Trump administration makes no such proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns.
Defense distributed plans to do this all on their own; The administration simply acknowledges the rule of law that under the constitution that congress is not allowed to have a prior restraint on the release to 1st amendment Free Speech rights; that is, the US government has no lawful authority to interfere with Defense Distributed publishing plans.
The same is true of the states as well; the mere fact that they found a judge to issue an unlawful order restraining the publication does not mean that it is the Trump Administration's preference that DD release their plans, let-alone a proposal.
He filmed people without their consent and posted it online. That alone could break rules and laws, even seen as harassment if people objected and he did it anyway.
In the US you can film in a public place, and you still have the right to show your footage even if your filming incidentally catches people in the background passing through your frame. Federal law doesn't legally require you must have a release for every model, unless you're in the porn/adult film industry.
eBooks are less expensive to produce, yet they usually cost more than the real book.
They're not just less-expensive... there's essentially no "aftermarket" --- you don't see a market for "used eBooks" people already ready -- because of DRM there's essentially no way to lend them to friends (except when provided with restrictions as a gimmick) or sell off eBooks you already read.. So the publishers have less competition for their readers, essentially captive audience, and the product in consumers' hands has less worth due to inherent lack of resale value --- also less material cost than physical book and not being readable without electricity, working reader tool, etc.
As soon as she refused to unlock the phone for them: the border agents likely decided to detain her and put her in handcuffs. Kind of hard to call the police and do anything, when the border police already have you in their custody.
Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt.
The border agencies have decided with agreement from some judges that at the border a thorough search is reasonable, and for some reason: including any data stored on any of your electronic devices, or cloud/social media accounts.
Actually - you are wrong on this one - We the People already sold the Spectrum... so Verizon owns it now.
Hold on there, just a darned minute: we the people did not sell any spectrum... In the words of every software publisher ever; what we sold was the privilege of getting a license to use the spectrum subject to conditions, for limited time --- revokable, in theory. Everything the carrier does with that spectrumhas to be pursuant to the license, and there are conditions where they could lose the license, or lose the exclusivity.
If we did reinstate net neutrality, would Facebook have to let Republicans post on it again?
No; The FCC rules do not require "Platform Neutrality" --- they regulate carriers and broadband providers; not websites / public application providers.
The fact that they throttled and CS refused to unthrottle shows that service providers are insistent upon prioritizing their business monetary interest to the detriment of the service the carriers are licensed to be providing to the public, And, shows that contrary to carriers' claims, they engage in network management practices that adversely affect the public, so Network Neutrality's protections aren't chasing an "imaginary" or non-existent problem, therefore regulation of their network management capability and protections for consumer privacy such as those in Network Neutrality and other regulations are appropriate and serve a purpose in restraining the carriers and protecting consumers against abusive practices.
put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.
That would be ideal..... Lifetime term limit for running for either house of congress: 6 Terms maximum. No more than 2 terms can be consecutive terms, the 2nd or later cumulative term can only be followed by a 2-year or longer period not working as an appointee or federal or state employee, lobbyist, contractor, consultant, or person working in Washington DC or other state or federal buildings, and no more than 3 terms can be within the same house of congress.
Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week
Sorry.... The FTC is not congress nor the judiciary and doesn't have the authority to get to decide when state laws and regulations more-restrictive than the federal rules may be pre-empted and negated by the federal authority.
In general states can pass more restrictive rules on any things built and commerce conducted inside their state.
Requiring Network Neutrality regarding services sold inside the state from cable systems installed on the state/municipal rights of way does not interferer with interstate commerce, therefore, even Congress itself has limited
ability to pre-empt extra state rules.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.
The first amendment states the following:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment is intended to restrain congress from acting against free speech. If revising or removing the Section 230 protections has a chilling effect on free expression, then Congress has abridged free speech, and the act of modifying Section 230 was then unconstitutional. It does not matter that Section 230 did not exist at the time the constitution was made ---- Today we enjoy certain free speech rights, And a law protects platforms who enable us to exercise that free speech right. ANY attempt to curtail that by passing any kind of law or law that says an existing law shall change --- is an abridgement of Free Speech; Once congress passes a law protecting free speech (Such as Section 230) --- which is their authority to do in order to enforce the constitution, The first amendment ensures congress does not have the right to abridge the rights of expression by cancelling that protection.
There are little details like consumer protection and antitrust, admittedly taken more seriously in Europe these days.
There doesn't seem to be any opportunity for "consumer protection" to have a role in this. Recall that the iPhone when released had no App capabilities at all --- you could only run apps built by Apple. To an extent that's still the case: there are private frameworks that only Apple can use, but they partially opened it up to developers. Consumer protections don't apply to the relationship between Apple and developers of software on their platforms. Apple can impose arbitrary terms on developers for access to their development tools, Certificates, and for publication of Apps, For example: Apple COULD have specified that all Apps are free, and No developer can charge the customer any money for the App or any Subscription or service related to it.
Apple didn't do that, But they would have the right to. Instead Apple allows developers to decide that an App and related services will have a cost, BUT in exchange for that privilege --- Apple will receive a designated share of all payments collected; this is both to cover Apple's costs of billing/payment processing, refunds, etc (Because they require all the billing be done through Apple), AND to provide Apple profit in whatever amount of profit Apple thinks the market will bear.
Apple would be perfectly satisfied if the App was completely free though: Apple is not Fixing the price that consumers will pay, and the developer independently prices their App and Services referred by Apple's platform.
Because Developers are businesses that sign a contract with Apple, and the cut of any revenue that Apple takes is defined in part of the contractual relationship required before you begin developing a Paid app on Apple's store. Paid up developers are allowed to build Free apps as well that don't cost consumers any fees at all. And Apple only gets a cut if the developer decides to charge for the App or decides to be Paid by people using the app through the developer platform and standard APIs which Apple has provided access to under the contract.
Assuming Apple is not deceptive in their marketing -- can charge as much for a product or service To businesses as they like: developers are free to develop for a different Smartphone platform, or even built their own smartphone hardware, software, and app platform. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the manufacture of Smartphones Except what Government-granted Patents provide (And Exploiting the Monopoly created by your government patents in any way is fully allowed), nor do they have a monopoly on Smart Phone App stores, nor Operating Systems or platforms that run smartphones. and End customers always have the recourse to refrain from buying Apple's hardware Or iPhone developers' apps and find an alternative way.
This isn't an Antitrust situation either --- there's no business relationship created by collusion, etc.
Because Apple's platform is closed not like the PC: Apple's development software and services are technologically very necessary for anybody to develop software that will run on Apple's hardware system --- It's not because of some trust arrangement that developers cannot create iPhone apps without joining the Apple developer program and obtaining the required certificates, software, and publishing through Apple..... Nobody else has come up with a solution to build and run software on iPhones not hardware-modified or altered by a hack that defeats or disables basic security without using Apple's tools and systems to develop the software.
Slashdot Mirror
When people try to quit they pile on the pressure. Guilt, threats to pass on costs, lies about contracts
Drop off 3 copies of a letter of resignation in a sealed envelope to HR, to your boss, and to their manager, and then be out of the building and away from that place before any of the envelopes get opened.
I really can't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to actually pay someone to inform an employer that you're quitting.
Yeah... doesn't make sense to me either. Would be more sensible to be able to hire someone to be able to represent you at performance reviews or in conducting research and providing an on-site service to help negotiate for higher pay or enhanced benefits on your behalf with your boss
- as your personal representative and expert in the industry (Since you as an individual employee are at a disadvantage without the ability to bring in provable information or expertise on the current markets for talent) ---- At least that way you could maybe recoup the $$$ and it could be a beneficial service -- just saying "You quit" or dropping off a resignation letter are so trivial that paying a 3rd party a high fee is ridiculous.
So, the problem will be solved when the Soyuz undocks.
Perhaps.... given the stakes involved; I wonder why (even while docked) the Soyuz pressurized environment wouldn't be kept ordinarily separated from the station's pressurized environment to minimize potential for a catastrophic leak from one craft affecting the entire station's, especially while they are sleeping on station...
Right but if you stop suddenly in front of someone you're an ASSHOLE. Don't blame people for being frustrated with assholes in traffic.
The traffic laws say that everyone has a legal duty to observe a minimum safe following distance to the car in front of you at all times, Because it is legal for the car in front to slow down or stop for safety reasons or no obvious reason at almost any time unless on a railroad track or similar zone marked no stopping for safety ---- which can be as simple as a wasp or insect interfering with the driver's ability to steer, a pedestrian unexpectedly walking out, or as complex as a tire failure or unsecured load falling off a vehicle ahead, And you in the back have absolutely no way of knowing for sure at any time whether or not a necessary reason for suddenly slowing or stopping may affect a vehicle ahead of you...
They're not being bad or naughty or "An ASSHOLE" for stopping if there is any concern whatsoever that would warrant such a cautionary step.
There are plenty of good reasons for slowing or stopping suddenly, including:
(1) To avoid an unexpected obstacle,
(2) To avoid or mitigate a risk of colliding with something ahead or conflicting,
(3) To avoid or reduce a violation Or to slow or delay reaching a point-of-no-return b/c of confusion regarding navigation or what lane you'll be required to be in.
So if I get a ticket for Texting while Driving do I submit the ticket to my employer
Generally your employer is not responsible for covering your ticket fine: even if you are driving a company vehicle.
That is... if the ticket is a moving violation, and not expired inspection sticker or invalid tags, since those fines ultimately
go against the property owner, not the driver. Parking violations you cause in a company are also your responsibility, even though if you fail to pay -- it's the vehicle's owner they will go after.
Since knowledge workers are generally exempt employees (outside of contractors) then they're not going to be paid overtime for their emails.
This means they can leave the office early though, Or arrive late - so as to offset their increase in time from commute e-mails with a reduction in office time --- and still legitimately say they've worked 40 or more hours each week, therefore: no PTO subtractions.
It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. If your lane is clear, you can turn into that lane safely because no one should be entering into it.
In most states it is legal to change lanes in an intersection, unless its a crossroads with solid lines between each lane. If you turn suddenly in front of a vehicle changing lanes, that is one of rare situations where you can be found at fault, since you made an illegal turn in front of a vehicle -- even if the collision is you getting a rear-end collision..
50 percent of potential customers "are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider."
WTF? Has the government been proceeding with their ears plugged for the past decade?
The whole issue is The last mile problem
A competing provider is not going to travel Half a Mile to try and grab another provider's customers ---- buildout is so extremely expensive that typically there is a tacit agreement between so-called "competitors" that they will stay away from other providers' turf.
Just TRY and get a cable company to service you whose nearest line is 1/2 a mile away.
Extending service by 1/2 mile of thickline is something like $30,000+ in a suburban/rural area, and potentially half a million or more in build costs to run the additional cable in an urban area ---- thus they aren't inclined to build, especially when the consequence is violating a de-facto unwritten informal but anti-competitive agreement b/w neighboring providers that risks causing revenue loss from losing other customers.
Surely the OS is providing standard access to every FS, so from an application perspective everything looks the same.
That is correct. From an application perspective everything SHOULD look the same regardless of the underlying filesystem --- filesystem parameters are chosen by the sysadmin, and the vast majority of Linux commonly used filesystem types provide the exact same common functionality and reliability to userspace applications with some oddball exceptions such as NFS, Smbfs/CIFS, some FUSE-based filesystems such as SSHFS - where there may be performance or locking issues with multiple-user access, or they may not fully support Linux permissions model or advanced features such as POSIX ACLs.
As a client/end-user application, you should be sitting entirely in userspace and not even have a legitimate reason for peeking at what the kernel version or various mounted filesystems and FS types are.
From a system administration perspective, each filesystem has special characteristics, and some of them like BtrFS are a beauty to use because of their greatly improved management capabilities, self-healing, and snapshots for backup, but apps should never notice the difference.
Most end-user applications should probably not care about the Init system. Linux is designed so that only major system services run as daemons and require Init management, so as long as you're building a client application - you are working in userspace, therefore, there shouldn't be any "system services" that you run.
Agreed.... Every nation should implement this border control ASAP.
Any nation that conceals or refuses to join a mutual relationship sharing data, samples, etc about any active pathogens or vaccine data with all nations/health agencies requesting should have a restriction against travel through other countries until the situation is remedied.
Others make the argument that it's the same thing as yelling "fire!" in a movie theater
and not protected free speech.
ALL speech is protected speech. The first amendment doesn't say "shall not abridge ..... EXCEPT (something)"
Yelling "Fire" in a theatre is not protected because yelling ANY WORD in a theatre is not allowed -- the restriction is not one regarding
the content of a message --- The word "Fire" in particular is not restricted, but the act of yelling a word or signal in general falsely suggesting danger with the intended purpose of inciting fear or panic can be a crime. There is no basis for comparison between that situation and publishing plans on the internet
Because 3D plans are routinely published on internet websites -- the medium is designed for it; they're not out of place in any way, and the distribution of plans on the internet does not create any kind of civil disturbance or disruption interfering with anyone.
The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...
It is legal to manufacture guns. Instead of an affirmative right to manufacture guns existing: the federal government doesn't have within
its enumerated powers a capability to ban the private manufacture of guns --- although they can regulate the manufacture related to interstate commerce;
the federal government doesn't have the authority to restrict individuals manufacturing firearms for their own personal use,
and they don't even attempt to (no law on the books prohibits this).
This injunction isn't a violation of the 2nd amendment: It's a breach of the 1st amendment rights of Defense Distributed.
preliminary injunction continuing a prohibition on the Trump administration proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns, untraceable weapons
The Trump administration makes no such proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns.
Defense distributed plans to do this all on their own; The administration simply acknowledges the rule of law that
under the constitution that congress is not allowed to have a prior restraint on the release to 1st amendment Free Speech rights;
that is, the US government has no lawful authority to interfere with Defense Distributed publishing plans.
The same is true of the states as well; the mere fact that they found a judge to issue an unlawful order restraining the
publication does not mean that it is the Trump Administration's preference that DD release their plans, let-alone a proposal.
He filmed people without their consent and posted it online. That alone could break rules and laws, even seen as harassment if people objected and he did it anyway.
In the US you can film in a public place, and you still have the right to show your footage even if your filming incidentally catches people in the background passing through your frame. Federal law doesn't legally require you must have a release for every model, unless you're in the porn/adult film industry.
eBooks are less expensive to produce, yet they usually cost more than the real book.
They're not just less-expensive... there's essentially no "aftermarket" --- you don't see a market for "used eBooks" people already ready -- because of DRM there's essentially no way to lend them to friends (except when provided with restrictions as a gimmick) or sell off eBooks you already read.. So the publishers have less competition for their readers, essentially captive audience, and the product in consumers' hands has less worth due to inherent lack of resale value --- also less material cost than physical book and not being readable without electricity, working reader tool, etc.
Just search eBay for 100W commercial long-life incandescent A19 E26 medium base or
"Rough Service" bulbs.... plenty of options
As soon as she refused to unlock the phone for them: the border agents likely decided to detain her and put her in handcuffs.
Kind of hard to call the police and do anything, when the border police already have you in their custody.
Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt.
The border agencies have decided with agreement from some judges that at the border a thorough search is reasonable, and for some reason: including any data stored on any of your electronic devices, or cloud/social media accounts.
Actually - you are wrong on this one - We the People already sold the Spectrum... so Verizon owns it now.
Hold on there, just a darned minute: we the people did not sell any spectrum... In the words of every software publisher ever;
what we sold was the privilege of getting a license to use the spectrum subject to conditions, for limited time --- revokable, in theory. Everything the carrier does with that spectrumhas to be pursuant to the license, and there are conditions where they could lose the license, or lose the exclusivity.
If we did reinstate net neutrality, would Facebook have to let Republicans post on it again?
No; The FCC rules do not require "Platform Neutrality" --- they regulate carriers and broadband providers; not websites / public application providers.
The fact that they throttled and CS refused to unthrottle shows that service providers are insistent upon prioritizing their
business monetary interest to the detriment of the service the carriers are licensed to be providing to the public, And,
shows that contrary to carriers' claims, they engage in network management practices that adversely affect the public,
so Network Neutrality's protections aren't chasing an "imaginary" or non-existent problem,
therefore regulation of their network management capability and protections for consumer privacy such as those in Network Neutrality
and other regulations are appropriate and serve
a purpose in restraining the carriers and protecting consumers against abusive practices.
put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.
That would be ideal..... Lifetime term limit for running for either house of congress: 6 Terms maximum. No more than 2 terms can be consecutive terms, the 2nd or later cumulative term can only be followed by a 2-year or longer period not working as an appointee or federal or state employee, lobbyist, contractor, consultant, or person working in Washington DC or other state or federal buildings, and no more than 3 terms can be within the same house of congress.
Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week
Sorry.... The FTC is not congress nor the judiciary and doesn't have the authority to get to decide when state laws and regulations more-restrictive than the federal rules may be pre-empted and negated by the federal authority.
In general states can pass more restrictive rules on any things built and commerce conducted inside their state.
Requiring Network Neutrality regarding services sold inside the state from cable systems installed on the state/municipal rights of way does not interferer with interstate commerce, therefore, even Congress itself has limited
ability to pre-empt extra state rules.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.
The first amendment states the following:
The first amendment is intended to restrain congress from acting against free speech. If revising or removing the Section 230 protections has a chilling effect on free expression, then Congress has abridged free speech, and the act of modifying Section 230 was then unconstitutional. It does not matter that Section 230 did not exist at the time the constitution was made ---- Today we enjoy certain free speech rights, And a law protects platforms who enable us to exercise that free speech right. ANY attempt to curtail that by passing any kind of law or law that says an existing law shall change --- is an abridgement of Free Speech; Once congress passes a law protecting free speech (Such as Section 230) --- which is their authority to do in order to enforce the constitution, The first amendment ensures congress does not have the right to abridge the rights of expression by cancelling that protection.
There are little details like consumer protection and antitrust, admittedly taken more seriously in Europe these days.
There doesn't seem to be any opportunity for "consumer protection" to have a role in this.
Recall that the iPhone when released had no App capabilities at all --- you could only run apps built by Apple.
To an extent that's still the case: there are private frameworks that only Apple can use, but they partially opened it up
to developers. Consumer protections don't apply to the relationship between Apple and developers of software on
their platforms. Apple can impose arbitrary terms on developers for access to their development tools, Certificates, and
for publication of Apps, For example: Apple COULD have specified that all Apps are free, and No developer can charge the customer
any money for the App or any Subscription or service related to it.
Apple didn't do that, But they would have the right to. Instead Apple allows developers to decide that an App and related services
will have a cost, BUT in exchange for that privilege --- Apple will receive a designated share of all payments collected; this is both to
cover Apple's costs of billing/payment processing, refunds, etc (Because they require all the billing be done through Apple), AND to
provide Apple profit in whatever amount of profit Apple thinks the market will bear.
Apple would be perfectly satisfied if the App was completely free though: Apple is not Fixing the price that consumers will pay, and
the developer independently prices their App and Services referred by Apple's platform.
Because Developers are businesses that sign a contract with Apple, and the cut of any revenue that Apple takes
is defined in part of the contractual relationship required before you begin developing a Paid app on Apple's store.
Paid up developers are allowed to build Free apps as well that don't cost consumers any fees at all. And Apple
only gets a cut if the developer decides to charge for the App or decides to be Paid by people using the app through the
developer platform and standard APIs which Apple has provided access to under the contract.
Assuming Apple is not deceptive in their marketing -- can charge as much for a product or service To businesses as they like:
developers are free to develop for a different Smartphone platform, or even built their own smartphone hardware, software, and app platform.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the manufacture of Smartphones Except what Government-granted Patents provide (And
Exploiting the Monopoly created by your government patents in any way is fully allowed), nor do they have a monopoly on Smart Phone App stores, nor Operating Systems or platforms that run smartphones. and End customers always have the recourse to refrain from buying Apple's hardware Or
iPhone developers' apps and find an alternative way.
This isn't an Antitrust situation either --- there's no business relationship created by collusion, etc.
Because Apple's platform is closed not like the PC: Apple's development software and services are technologically very
necessary for anybody to develop software that will run on Apple's hardware system --- It's not because of some
trust arrangement that developers cannot create iPhone apps without joining the Apple developer program and obtaining
the required certificates, software, and publishing through Apple..... Nobody else has come up with a solution to build and
run software on iPhones not hardware-modified or altered by a hack that defeats or disables basic security without using Apple's tools and systems
to develop the software.