Could anyone help me understand why this was flagged dead? Is it incorrect somehow? This is a discussion around legality, so it makes sense to keep the discussion in that context.
Apple being able to do something undesirable, in the perspective in the intent of the law, is either a "loophole" in the law, or the law doesn't actually accomplish what it was made to. Both are problems with the law. This isn't an Apple thing as much as a "anyone who will benefit in complying minimally will comply minimally". Apple today, whomever else tomorrow.
Because GP's comment mixes the concepts and who thinks what in a very "I'm just asking a question" way, while suggesting that everything not illegal is 100% fine. People don't appreciate that because they see exactly the kind of person who would operate in that malicious compliance mode.
Obviously you can't regulate every bit of behavior and this will always leave room for abusing corner cases. You have quiet hours in your neighborhood? I'll just make the maximum amount of noise every second it's allowed, forever. It's legal, it's not fine. So clearly GP's comment rubs people the wrong way enough to be flagged.
It's pretty clear from the term itself that malicious compliance is compliance or else it would have been called (malicious) noncompliance. This is what people think Apple is doing. What EU authorities believe is that Apple is not compliant with the law, perhaps for different reasons than people see as malicious compliance.
So the EU is bashing Apple for them not being compliant, while regular people are bashing Apple for the malicious compliance. The second one is perfectly fine to do even without a judge's verdict.
> What is malicious compliance? Apple is either in compliance or it isn’t.
Because funnily enough, the comment itself is kind of malicious compliance.
It has the form of polite debate, but it also feigns to not understand the parent (bad faith is a pretty simple/obvious concept and I'm sure the author gets it), which ruins the discussion. So yes, it appears reasonable that it is flagged.
From a point of argument, they're not wrong though, albeit an obvious point they're making that if loopholes exist, companies will definitely find them and take advantage, and still be in compliance because the pitfalls of said regulations weren't accounted for.
This leaves it up for debate in courts to settle those shortcomings, but it wouldn't be surprising if they found they were compliant and that the rules need adjustments.