There's an easier way to get around the GPL - load an unmodified copy into ram, then patch it.
Dubious. The GPL is a license, much like any other.
Copyright only applies to software when it is in a fixed form, such as on a hard disk, or a DVD. This is why it is not a violation of copyright to make a copy of a program when you load it into ram.
Do you have anything to cite that will back this up other than your Nintendo argument? How does a work suddenly exit copyright once it ends up in RAM?
patch the ram image with your own proprietary code, and there's no obligation to distribute the source for either the patch OR the code that does the patching.
Do you spend lots of time thinking about ways to violate the GPL? Is your spite so ingrained that you exert effort trying to screw people over?
Nintendo lost when they tried to argue that Game Genie was making an unauthorized copy by patching code in memory - the courts ruled that the law simply doesn't apply to transient copies in ram, just to copies that have some modicum of "permanence."
The difference being that, unlike your spiteful bypass, the Game Genie does not include any of the code in question that is to be modified. Effectively, the end-user takes it upon themselves to acquire and apply the modification. Whereas your "solution" distributes both the GPL work and the modification to be applied. This hasn't been tested in court, though I suspect that it would fall foul, especially since the combined work of the local library AND patch are effectively a derivative work.
Not that modifying a kernel in-memory is going to be a safe or easy thing to do. Easier to just merge upstream instead of thinking your shit smells like flowers and is special or something. Even TiVO fucking did that.
Also, it is the "forced got to give back the changes" that has resulted in too many forks,
It has? Too many forks? How so? No wait, you'll just parrot the same old junk back at me.
if there were only one or two distros has been dissipated (wasted) in generating a dysfunctional ecosystem of over 1,000 "me-too" distros
Except there are only a handful of distros that really matter. Not that there's such a thing as "fragmentation" when all of your software is open source. You don't have the problems you do with Android and its attempts to support closed source software.
Plus, since there's very little opportunity to actually make money fixing the problems, they don't get fixed.
Of course not, desktop Linux is a futile effort because Microsoft's legacy is too big and the monopoly too strong. Can you point out what other "problems" there are that are actually problems and not just heavily biased opinion?
Only a freetard will continue to argue otherwise when even Vista has more users, and works better.
1. Ad-hominem. FOSS haters seem to be utterly unable to make a single post that doesn't attack someone 2. "works better" is subjective.
You always crawl out of the woodwork to defend Apple and hold them blameless.
So it's not the App Store.
It's a bit of both, really. The App Store imposes odius terms upon the user on top of whatever license the developer supplies, that directly contradict the GPL.
the App Store has always been happy to have GPL software. VLC for example was put on the App Store by some of it's developers. However one VLC developer was unhappy and complained that that was contrary to GPL.
The App Store is happy to have any software that furthers Apple's goals. They don't want to deal with licensing issues such as the one pointed out by the VLC developer.
As I said your claim that this is Apple's attitude that prevents it is false.
Apple's attitude does prevent it, as it makes it impossible to put software on the platform that complies with the GPL.
And to take it back to the original topic, this may be one reason while fewer projects are choosing GPL these days.
Possibly. But it's foolish and serves only to kowtow to Apple's pro-lockdown fetish.
So you just admitted my point that you can't link to a GPL api in your program.
Admit nothing, it's obvious by virtue of the license.
You can't use a GPL library for private use if you wish to retain ownership.
Please be specific. Do you mean for private use or for use in a work you distribute?
That was my point and why software companies shake their heads listening to free GNU zealots on how they can easily use an include statement without issue. You simply can't.
I don't recall ever having read someone say this, anywhere. To suggest that this is a reason to not use GNU software in a private company is patently ridiculous, unless your lawyers are incompetent and can't discern the difference between the GPL and LGPL.
you have the right to depend on the public statements of people.
But not deliberate misinterpretations or wishful extrapolations.
Take a look at Oracle vs Google - Google is going to argue that the public statements of Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz that Sun was just fine with Google Android preclude Oracle from successfully claiming damages, or that at the most they should be much lower because of this.
That's because he was the CEO making public statements explicitly to the effect that he was fine with it, and encouraged it. Stallman said NOTHING, not one damned thing, like what you suggest.
His statements, as head of the FSF, can be used as a defense for any business decides to argue prommisory estoppel the next time they're sued for violating the GPL on all software copyrights assigned to the FSF.
Unlikely. As you've already been told, he's not saying that "you should pirate proprietary software." He's saying "you shouldn't feel guilty if you share, because the license carries no moral weight." It still carries legal weight however, thus you shouldn't pirate anyway. Then I'm sure he'd tell you, if you asked, that you should use Free Software rather than pirate, because piracy just furthers the use of non-free software.
Dunno, I certainly don't work for one. Any company that has a "No GNU" policy either has lazy lawyers or PHBs that bought into FUD like is being spammed all over this thread.
you can't use an include to a GPL library unless the whole program is free.
Obviously. Do you have a less FUD-filled point to make?
I guess Slashdot is the target of a concerted anti-GPL effort.
Linux, and unix-like OS's as a whole don't have a stable ABI, and you go through dependency hell (or dll-hell in windows-land) trying to make most FOSS software work because they depend on system libraries that only exist on X version of Y Distro.
Really? So apt-get install <package> doesn't work for you? Of course, if you're building something then I'd assume you were familiar with what you're actually building.
For the most part Windows and MacOS solve this problem by having most applications just come with their own copy of the libraries they use and only falling back on the system library in absence of the packaged one.
This results in large.app packages on OS X and the duplication of libraries, and on Windows you either run into compatibility issues outright or you have the Microsoft workaround called "WinSxS."
GPL is decidedly anti-business, and politically hostile.
So pro-consumer = anti-business, and freedom is "politically hostile."
Dependency hell due to the not wanting to create licence violations is another.
This is an empty statement unless you can clarify what you mean.
Ultimately Linux is used in many places where it's extremely high maintenance where Windows or OS X are maintenance-free just because software licences are more straight forward.
This is an outright fabrication, honestly. OS X's licensing, if you can call it that, is infinitely more hostile than the GPL.
On Linux you might have to spend several hours updating the system before installing a new program. Windows and OSX will work out of the box.
Blatant lie, sorry.
The rest of your post is, frankly, keyword gibberish.
You have to pay Apple $99 and hope that they will allow you to use it. You can't simply install it on your handset.
(Yes I know you can install software on your handset as a developer, but it still costs $99 and only lasts for 120 days. Exerting control over users for self-serving purposes is actually unethical, IMO.)
Before Hairyfeet decides to troll again over a typo, a correction:
Oh please, this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. If you're a hardware manufacturer, the quality of your driver and your reputation depend on their ability to code their way out of a paper bag.
That should read:
Oh please, this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. If you're a hardware manufacturer, the quality of your driver and your reputation depend on your developer's ability to code their way out of a paper bag.
I'm not sure if you're referring to something I didn't see, or are just talking past me. If you are, that's pretty rude. Oh and for the record, I haven't insulted you once.
That is how you can spot a butthurt FOSSie BTW, they have NO arguments so all they can do is insult.
This is called projecting. You fling ad-hominem attacks constantly and accuse others of doing it to you.
Imagine I am a hardware manufacturer, I can go Linux, which means i either have to throw the stability and reputation of my company's products to some kernel dev who may or may not give a shit
Oh please, this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. If you're a hardware manufacturer, the quality of your driver and your reputation depend on their ability to code their way out of a paper bag. I invite you to highlight how a kernel dev could harm your reputation or your driver. It sounds to me like you're making shit up rather than relating actual experience.
I can "pull an Nvidia" and pay an entire team to do nothing but deal with Torlvald's breakage by constantly updating the drivers
Which is a tradeoff: you keep your sources closed, but in turn no one fixes the "breakage" for you. You also don't get any bugfixes.
or I can just write FOUR little drivers and be finished until 2022.
But why should an open source project be obligated to support your closed source driver until 2022? Oh right, because they should be like Microsoft and only release a new kernel once every several years rather than constantly iterating on it.
It is THIS reason why Linux is crippled without an ABI, because any manufacturer can cover Windows from 1999-2022 with a single CD and that's it, you are done.
That's a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole and you know it.
Your entire argument boils down to: Linux should stop being so flexible for the sake of those poor, poor hardware vendors that want to keep their drivers proprietary for whatever reason, and they should support them forever!
Which is utter nonsense.
But instead because there are so many FOSSies, which again treat the OS as religion and thus all edicts as religious dogma, instead you'll get excuses or insults.
You have received no insults or excuses.
Even the one kernel dev they constantly post in rebuttal is a FOSSie, who even writes in his rebuttal "And I hope all of those that use non free drivers have them break constantly!"
Who posts this in rebuttal? What kernel dev is this? Can you cite anything you post? With something having a shred more credibility than anti-Linux hate sites?
Note to all: Hairyfeet cannot post a real argument. He can only throw out ad-hominems, unsubstantiated arguments, ridiculous arguments, and "sources" of questionable veracity.
Ok ok, assuming the license is GPL. Same effect if it's BSD though, the version you receive is effectively proprietary as you can't modify and replace the version on your iPhone without getting Apple's permission or violating their EULA.
No, he rejects the notion that sharing is wrong. He also suggests that if you do share, you shouldn't feel bad because, as he said, the EULAs have no moral force, only legal.
since he publicly states that neither copyright laws nor software licenses should have any force, anyone can pirate a GPL program and use his statements as promisory estoppel.
Hardly. His statements are for him alone and do not apply to any and all GPL programs.
And then you wrap up with an ad-hominem. Man, you FOSS/GPL haters are real clever with your arguments, y'know?
And if those apps were put on the store they can choose to waive the GPL for the release. Effectively, the version you get via the store isn't GPL as Apple has replaced it with their own overbearing terms, with the author's implicit permission.
Hairyfeet isn't who I'd go to for "criticizing Linux on the technical level." He's great for 4-chan style "butthurt" arguments though.
the latest excuse on the lack of a stable/standardized API/ABI, "it's not Torvalds fault." What do you say to that?
There's no stable ABI because the kernel developers, as a whole, decided they weren't interested in tying their hands for the sake of vendors that refuse to release open source drivers or vendors that refuse to push their drivers upstream.
There's no "excuse" because, frankly, there's nothing to excuse.
So there are more projects overall, but less of the new projects use GPL. That isn't bad in the slightest, quite frankly. It'd be more telling if projects were relicensing away from the GPL, but they aren't.
Right up until GPL V3 the numbers were consistent, it was going up quarter by quarter, after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.
Why not just link to those numbers right now?
But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted
No I didn't, I told you to cite some sources rather than throw around ad-hominems and "anyone that disagrees with me is just butthurt" 4-chan style arguments.
A FOSS advocate uses FOSS because it is the best tool for a particular job they have, FOSSies look upon it as a religion, FOSS advocates argue their position with the pros and cons, FOSSies see everything as a personal attack on their Deity.
So anyone that disagrees with you is immediately slotted into the second category, right? Cause that's what you're doing now.
This phenomena isn't exactly a secret, it is why we have comics like this and this and actual syndromes like this one.
So two webcomics and some arbitrary website that appears to be anti-Linux hate site. Seriously, that's what the third site you linked comes across as. It's almost insane in how curled back on itself that site is with hatred. That's as bad as calling Linux insecure and linking to three bugs, two of which were over FOUR YEARS OLD. Your hatred is almost as irrational and insane as the "worship" you ascribe others as having.
If you would like to see an example of this syndrome BTW, please go to linux Insider and look up anything posted by pogson, its soo funny to watch a FOSSie as he keeps saying "That other OS" or M$ because he's sure that if he types the actual word then MSFT Ninjas will get him, hilarious!
Because one guy is representative of everyone.
Eventually you'll realize that you're at least as crazy and irrational as the people you claim to rail against.
Of course SaaS providers would object to the GPLv3, it eliminated the ability for them to exploit GPL software, subsequently used by their customers, without distributing the sources. Much like the anti-tivoization clause, it's another patch to fix the loopholes that companies exploit.
All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.
iOS and WP are antithetical to the concept of Free Software, let alone open source.
And then the people who can't help but throw around ad-hominems against things they hate show up.
They know those that treat anything RMS says as word of God will get all butthurt when they see this and will go apeshit and hilarious flames will ensue, but really if one thinks logically it is easy to explain
Except the original article was itself flawed.
1.- GPL V3 went too anti-business, with RMS going so far as to target one business specifically, 2.- Businesses and those that are working for them were the ones writing much of the GPL code, 3.-RMS refuses to change a line or compromise, 4.-Everyone votes with their feet by going to a different license.
Care to go into detail on this? It'd back your argumetn up.
Now watch those followers of St iGNUicious have a living shitfit because i dared to point out not only reality, but that freedom works BOTH ways!
Back up your statements, otherwise you're just throwing shit at the wall.
I have an Android phone, an Acura with it's "infotainment audio/GPS/voice command/bullshit" system, and I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro. I also use lots of Windows and Linux variants on different systems at work at home. Do you care? No, but my point is that I'm not a fanboy and I use them all, and they all have their pros and cons. I can tell you this -- I would vote for Apple in my car. Why? Because Apple is awesome at user interfaces, and that is what sucks so hard in most vehicle systems these days.
Good for you. You would choose a tightly controlled platform. Enjoy.
AndroidCar or LinuxCar -- really, you seriously want that? I don't. I don't want to have to spend hours upon hours upon hours tweaking, tuning, building, and otherwise manipulating my car's GUI just to make it usable.
Because that's the only way a Linux-based platform can work, right. Only Apple can possibly "just work," for everything else it's a battle to do anything. AMIRITE?
The reason Linux hasn't taken over the desktop? Because there's too god damn many knobs to turn.
Nonsense. I suspect it has more to do with Microsoft being in a position that ensures OSes not tied to a single hardware vendor are guaranteed to fail.
Show me 2 Linux systems owned by 2 nerds, and they'll neither look nor flow ANYTHING alike.
This is a plus that is disregarded by Apple fans who have lost grasp on the concept of choice.
an OS that works well on servers but is an absolute failure on the desktop because its "do one thing well" mentality creates fragmentation and doesn't fit the needs or expectations of average users.
No, Linux doesn't do well on the desktop because there's no interest in the user base or most companies in targeting "average" people because Microsoft owns the desktop. You have to be insular like Apple to actually succeed.
It also doesn't cause fragmentation, that's a lie spread by Apple fanboys who insist that being controlled by a single entity is the pinnacle of technology.
Apple can create their own logic block and included it in their ARM chips. Microsoft could demand the same for ARM devices running Windows (they're pretty fucking close to that already,) the only reason they don't on x86 is because they would be easily targeted for an antitrust suit.
Yes I know specifically of 3 letter agency backdoors in consumer hardware and am going to espouse them openly on Slashdot...... Because I want nothing more than to go to jail in order to win an argument.
The funny thing about this statement is that it's non-falsifiable, so at best it should be ignored.
Sorry, but that doesn't invalidate the point.
And empty, unprovable statements don't support yours.
China has openly said why they are not allowing Twitter and Facebook in: the US has been using them to incite unrest.
Or the CCP is afraid that users will communicate ideas they don't approve of, which they can't on the tightly controlled internal services. That "the US has been using them to incite unrest" is just making up excuses.
I cant be bothered but search iran, twitter, china daily - and youll find some of their official English response.
Their "official" responses mean nothing, quite frankly. Unless you're, you know, stumping on their behalf.
Slashdot Mirror
Dubious. The GPL is a license, much like any other.
Do you have anything to cite that will back this up other than your Nintendo argument? How does a work suddenly exit copyright once it ends up in RAM?
Do you spend lots of time thinking about ways to violate the GPL? Is your spite so ingrained that you exert effort trying to screw people over?
The difference being that, unlike your spiteful bypass, the Game Genie does not include any of the code in question that is to be modified. Effectively, the end-user takes it upon themselves to acquire and apply the modification. Whereas your "solution" distributes both the GPL work and the modification to be applied. This hasn't been tested in court, though I suspect that it would fall foul, especially since the combined work of the local library AND patch are effectively a derivative work.
Not that modifying a kernel in-memory is going to be a safe or easy thing to do. Easier to just merge upstream instead of thinking your shit smells like flowers and is special or something. Even TiVO fucking did that.
It has? Too many forks? How so? No wait, you'll just parrot the same old junk back at me.
Except there are only a handful of distros that really matter. Not that there's such a thing as "fragmentation" when all of your software is open source. You don't have the problems you do with Android and its attempts to support closed source software.
Of course not, desktop Linux is a futile effort because Microsoft's legacy is too big and the monopoly too strong. Can you point out what other "problems" there are that are actually problems and not just heavily biased opinion?
1. Ad-hominem. FOSS haters seem to be utterly unable to make a single post that doesn't attack someone
2. "works better" is subjective.
You always crawl out of the woodwork to defend Apple and hold them blameless.
It's a bit of both, really. The App Store imposes odius terms upon the user on top of whatever license the developer supplies, that directly contradict the GPL.
The App Store is happy to have any software that furthers Apple's goals. They don't want to deal with licensing issues such as the one pointed out by the VLC developer.
Apple's attitude does prevent it, as it makes it impossible to put software on the platform that complies with the GPL.
Possibly. But it's foolish and serves only to kowtow to Apple's pro-lockdown fetish.
Admit nothing, it's obvious by virtue of the license.
Please be specific. Do you mean for private use or for use in a work you distribute?
I don't recall ever having read someone say this, anywhere. To suggest that this is a reason to not use GNU software in a private company is patently ridiculous, unless your lawyers are incompetent and can't discern the difference between the GPL and LGPL.
But not deliberate misinterpretations or wishful extrapolations.
That's because he was the CEO making public statements explicitly to the effect that he was fine with it, and encouraged it. Stallman said NOTHING, not one damned thing, like what you suggest.
Unlikely. As you've already been told, he's not saying that "you should pirate proprietary software." He's saying "you shouldn't feel guilty if you share, because the license carries no moral weight." It still carries legal weight however, thus you shouldn't pirate anyway. Then I'm sure he'd tell you, if you asked, that you should use Free Software rather than pirate, because piracy just furthers the use of non-free software.
Dunno, I certainly don't work for one. Any company that has a "No GNU" policy either has lazy lawyers or PHBs that bought into FUD like is being spammed all over this thread.
Obviously. Do you have a less FUD-filled point to make?
I guess Slashdot is the target of a concerted anti-GPL effort.
Really? So apt-get install <package> doesn't work for you? Of course, if you're building something then I'd assume you were familiar with what you're actually building.
This results in large .app packages on OS X and the duplication of libraries, and on Windows you either run into compatibility issues outright or you have the Microsoft workaround called "WinSxS."
So pro-consumer = anti-business, and freedom is "politically hostile."
This is an empty statement unless you can clarify what you mean.
This is an outright fabrication, honestly. OS X's licensing, if you can call it that, is infinitely more hostile than the GPL.
Blatant lie, sorry.
The rest of your post is, frankly, keyword gibberish.
Or you're making things up. Your credibility is such that it could go either way, really.
You have to pay Apple $99 and hope that they will allow you to use it. You can't simply install it on your handset.
(Yes I know you can install software on your handset as a developer, but it still costs $99 and only lasts for 120 days. Exerting control over users for self-serving purposes is actually unethical, IMO.)
Before Hairyfeet decides to troll again over a typo, a correction:
That should read:
I'm not sure if you're referring to something I didn't see, or are just talking past me. If you are, that's pretty rude. Oh and for the record, I haven't insulted you once.
This is called projecting. You fling ad-hominem attacks constantly and accuse others of doing it to you.
Oh please, this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. If you're a hardware manufacturer, the quality of your driver and your reputation depend on their ability to code their way out of a paper bag. I invite you to highlight how a kernel dev could harm your reputation or your driver. It sounds to me like you're making shit up rather than relating actual experience.
Which is a tradeoff: you keep your sources closed, but in turn no one fixes the "breakage" for you. You also don't get any bugfixes.
But why should an open source project be obligated to support your closed source driver until 2022? Oh right, because they should be like Microsoft and only release a new kernel once every several years rather than constantly iterating on it.
That's a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole and you know it.
Your entire argument boils down to: Linux should stop being so flexible for the sake of those poor, poor hardware vendors that want to keep their drivers proprietary for whatever reason, and they should support them forever!
Which is utter nonsense.
You have received no insults or excuses.
Who posts this in rebuttal? What kernel dev is this? Can you cite anything you post? With something having a shred more credibility than anti-Linux hate sites?
Note to all: Hairyfeet cannot post a real argument. He can only throw out ad-hominems, unsubstantiated arguments, ridiculous arguments, and "sources" of questionable veracity.
Well great, enjoy not really being able to use it because your platform treats you like a hostile entity.
Ok ok, assuming the license is GPL. Same effect if it's BSD though, the version you receive is effectively proprietary as you can't modify and replace the version on your iPhone without getting Apple's permission or violating their EULA.
No, he rejects the notion that sharing is wrong. He also suggests that if you do share, you shouldn't feel bad because, as he said, the EULAs have no moral force, only legal.
Hardly. His statements are for him alone and do not apply to any and all GPL programs.
And then you wrap up with an ad-hominem. Man, you FOSS/GPL haters are real clever with your arguments, y'know?
And if those apps were put on the store they can choose to waive the GPL for the release. Effectively, the version you get via the store isn't GPL as Apple has replaced it with their own overbearing terms, with the author's implicit permission.
Yes, because the iTunes store places additional restrictions on end users, while the GPL directly opposes that.
RMS isn't doing shit. The developer that chose the GPL decided to place that restriction.
He's also anti-lockdown and pro-freedom. Again, iOS/WP are very anti-freedom and pro-lockdown.
Hairyfeet isn't who I'd go to for "criticizing Linux on the technical level." He's great for 4-chan style "butthurt" arguments though.
There's no stable ABI because the kernel developers, as a whole, decided they weren't interested in tying their hands for the sake of vendors that refuse to release open source drivers or vendors that refuse to push their drivers upstream.
There's no "excuse" because, frankly, there's nothing to excuse.
So there are more projects overall, but less of the new projects use GPL. That isn't bad in the slightest, quite frankly. It'd be more telling if projects were relicensing away from the GPL, but they aren't.
Why not just link to those numbers right now?
No I didn't, I told you to cite some sources rather than throw around ad-hominems and "anyone that disagrees with me is just butthurt" 4-chan style arguments.
So anyone that disagrees with you is immediately slotted into the second category, right? Cause that's what you're doing now.
So two webcomics and some arbitrary website that appears to be anti-Linux hate site. Seriously, that's what the third site you linked comes across as. It's almost insane in how curled back on itself that site is with hatred. That's as bad as calling Linux insecure and linking to three bugs, two of which were over FOUR YEARS OLD. Your hatred is almost as irrational and insane as the "worship" you ascribe others as having.
Because one guy is representative of everyone.
Eventually you'll realize that you're at least as crazy and irrational as the people you claim to rail against.
Of course SaaS providers would object to the GPLv3, it eliminated the ability for them to exploit GPL software, subsequently used by their customers, without distributing the sources. Much like the anti-tivoization clause, it's another patch to fix the loopholes that companies exploit.
All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.
iOS and WP are antithetical to the concept of Free Software, let alone open source.
And then the people who can't help but throw around ad-hominems against things they hate show up.
Except the original article was itself flawed.
Care to go into detail on this? It'd back your argumetn up.
Back up your statements, otherwise you're just throwing shit at the wall.
Good for you. You would choose a tightly controlled platform. Enjoy.
Because that's the only way a Linux-based platform can work, right. Only Apple can possibly "just work," for everything else it's a battle to do anything. AMIRITE?
Nonsense. I suspect it has more to do with Microsoft being in a position that ensures OSes not tied to a single hardware vendor are guaranteed to fail.
This is a plus that is disregarded by Apple fans who have lost grasp on the concept of choice.
No, Linux doesn't do well on the desktop because there's no interest in the user base or most companies in targeting "average" people because Microsoft owns the desktop. You have to be insular like Apple to actually succeed.
It also doesn't cause fragmentation, that's a lie spread by Apple fanboys who insist that being controlled by a single entity is the pinnacle of technology.
But nonetheless they want this.
Apple can create their own logic block and included it in their ARM chips. Microsoft could demand the same for ARM devices running Windows (they're pretty fucking close to that already,) the only reason they don't on x86 is because they would be easily targeted for an antitrust suit.
The funny thing about this statement is that it's non-falsifiable, so at best it should be ignored.
And empty, unprovable statements don't support yours.
Or the CCP is afraid that users will communicate ideas they don't approve of, which they can't on the tightly controlled internal services. That "the US has been using them to incite unrest" is just making up excuses.
Their "official" responses mean nothing, quite frankly. Unless you're, you know, stumping on their behalf.