Yes. I think laws should be used to shut down things that are universally disliked but for which there is no other mechanism for accountability. That seems like obviously the point of laws.
not the LLM features. The undisable-able intrusions to advertise them, which rely on controlling platforms and so being able to use them to anticompetitively promote their own products.
Yes, the LLM features. There's nothing anticompetitive in a popup or button for your own feature in your own product. People like me find many of them useful. Maybe you find that inconvenient for the narrative you're pushing, but it's true.
What do you mean narrative? The narrative is that I hate them. If almost everyone else also does, we should ban them. Simple as that.
It is no different from passing legislation to ban spam or mandate that newsletters have one-click unsubscribe buttons. I hate living a world where corporations are unaccountably disrespectful to their users. Laws are how you hold them accountable. I don't care if the justification for the laws is competition or spam or what. It's simply the point of laws: to give society power over things that individuals can't easily have power over, so that they may improve their lives. To argue that we shouldn't improve our lives is absurd. The only justification for not doing it would be that it is immoral to do so, which it is not. Otherwise the only remaining question is whether we can rally the political will to do it. Not likely in the short term, but, the way things are going I expect it will happen eventually.
> If almost everyone else also does, we should ban them.
But not "almost everyone" hates them. Plenty of people like them and use them. You're ignoring that.
And think about applying your argument to free speech. If most people don't like an opinion, should we ban it?
You shouldn't be able to ban things you merely don't like. There needs to be some kind of legitimate harm. Having Gemini in your Gmail isn't creating any harm.
