Phone makers should be allowed to require that every app on their devices pass through an app store they review. 0.50 Agree Disagree

Topic: Software · draft Still needs: evidence, objective criteria, testable predictions or a falsifiability test, costs and benefits, interests on either side (listed at the end of the page) · Votes are shown as what people think, next to what the analysis says, and never move a score. · Position on the topic axis (typed, not scored): -45

If you disagree, this page has a column for you. A study, record or dataset for “A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches malware and scams before they reach millions of people who would never spot them on their own”, which rests on argument alone.

Argument TreesHow arguments are scored →

Reasons to agree

#	Argument	Truth	Link	Imp	Uniq	Score
1	A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches malware and scams before they reach millions of people who would never spot them on their own.Agree Disagree	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	+0.00
2	When every phone app must come through the phone maker's reviewed store, the maker can hold all apps to the same privacy and refund rules, so users get the same protections no matter which app they use.Agree Disagree	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	+0.00
3	When every phone app comes through one store, the phone maker is answerable for what is on it and can pull a harmful app from every phone as soon as it is discovered.Agree Disagree	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	+0.00

Reasons to disagree

#	Argument	Truth	Link	Imp	Uniq	Score
1	A phone maker that reviews apps and also sells its own apps competes with the developers it judges, so it can reject or delay rivals for business reasons and call it safety.Agree Disagree	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	-0.00
2	App store review by phone makers still lets harmful apps through, so the sense of safety is partly false while the loss of choice is real.Agree Disagree	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	-0.00
3	People own their phones and should decide what runs on them, just as they choose what programs to install on a personal computer, and a phone maker should not get to veto that choice after the sale.Agree Disagree	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	-0.00

Weight for 0.00 · weight against 0.00 · net +0.00

Each reason is a claim with its own page. Score = sign x (2 x Truth - 1) x Conf x Link x Imp x Uniq, and every column is here so the row can be multiplied out and checked. A reason argued false scores negative and counts against the side it is filed on; a reason nobody has argued yet scores exactly 0, and so does one whose own page has no work behind it.

What Would Change the AnswerTruth scores →

Top 5 of 6 rows shown. Show all

#	Input	Its truth	Conf	If false	If true	If settled	What it does here
1	A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches malware and scams before they reach millions of people who would never spot them on their own. Claim	0.50	0%	0.50	0.50	0.17	worth settling
2	When every phone app must come through the phone maker's reviewed store, the maker can hold all apps to the same privacy and refund rules, so users get the same protections no matter which app they use. Claim	0.50	0%	0.50	0.50	0.17	worth settling
3	When every phone app comes through one store, the phone maker is answerable for what is on it and can pull a harmful app from every phone as soon as it is discovered. Claim	0.50	0%	0.50	0.50	0.17	worth settling
4	A phone maker that reviews apps and also sells its own apps competes with the developers it judges, so it can reject or delay rivals for business reasons and call it safety. Claim	0.50	0%	0.50	0.50	0.17	worth settling
5	App store review by phone makers still lets harmful apps through, so the sense of safety is partly false while the loss of choice is real. Claim	0.50	0%	0.50	0.50	0.17	worth settling
6	People own their phones and should decide what runs on them, just as they choose what programs to install on a personal computer, and a phone maker should not get to veto that choice after the sale. Claim	0.50	0%	0.50	0.50	0.17	worth settling

Every claim beneath this page held at false and then at true, one at a time, with the whole graph recomputed each time. "If false" and "if true" are where this page’s truth score lands; "Move" is how far apart they are. "If settled" is that same distance with the input’s confidence held at 1, which is what it would be worth once the work behind it is finished, so the gap between Move and If settled is the value of doing that work. This is one input at a time and finds single points of failure; it does not test several inputs moving together, which is how correlated assumptions actually fail.

Related Beliefs

When a government pays to have software built for public services, its source code should, by default, be made public for anyone to read. 0.50
Phone makers should be allowed to require that every app on their devices pass through an app store they review. (this page)

The other beliefs filed under Software; this one is listed unlinked.

Not filled in yet

Top 5 of 10 rows shown. Show all

Evidence Ledger	no findings cited yet
Falsifiability Test	nothing named that would strengthen or weaken this belief if it turned up
Testable Predictions	nothing stated that we should observe if this belief is true or false
Objective Criteria	no yardstick both sides would accept in advance has been proposed
What Acting On This Would Cost and Gain	no costs or benefits priced yet
Logical Anatomy	the claim has not been split into its component parts
Interests, Not Positions	nobody has mapped who wants what, or why
Media Resources	no books, studies or films weighed
Legal Framework	no laws or rulings cited
General to Specific	not linked to broader or narrower beliefs

Parts of the template nobody has filled in here. They are named rather than shown, because an empty table is not a finding, and each one is a reason the confidence above is not higher. A part that takes rows has a form for its first one.

What this page needs right now

#	The gap	Where it goes	Who is best placed to fill it
1	A study, record or dataset for “A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches malware and scams before they reach millions of people who would never spot them on their own”, which rests on argument alone	Evidence Ledger	anyone with the source
2	A measurement both sides would accept in advance, with the reading each side predicts	Objective Criteria	anyone who can name a yardstick the other side would sign

Named gaps, read off the tables above, so a newcomer can see exactly where a contribution goes. None of them requires agreeing with the page, and each one links to the form it goes in.

What the numbers are made of

Share on the agree side: no scored weight either way
Confidence: 32%. Weakest parts: scrutiny 0% · grounding 0%
Depended on: ReasonRank 0.0033, 129 of 2173
Strongest reason for: A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches malware and scams before they reach millions of people who would never spot them on their own. +0.00
Strongest reason against: A phone maker that reviews apps and also sells its own apps competes with the developers it judges, so it can reject or delay rivals for business reasons and call it safety. -0.00
What would move this most: Settling A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches mal…: 0.50 if false, 0.50 if true
Coverage: Of 6 scored rows, 6 have no linkage page, 6 have no importance page, 6 have no uniqueness page. This page reads 6 other pages. 6 of them are one-sided or empty: A single review checkpoint that every phone app must pass catches malware and scams before they reach millions of people who would never spot them on their own.; When every phone app must come through the phone maker's reviewed store, the maker can hold all apps to the same privacy and refund rules, so users get the same protections no matter which app they use.; When every phone app comes through one store, the phone maker is answerable for what is on it and can pull a harmful app from every phone as soon as it is discovered.; A phone maker that reviews apps and also sells its own apps competes with the developers it judges, so it can reject or delay rivals for business reasons and call it safety.; App store review by phone makers still lets harmful apps through, so the sense of safety is partly false while the loss of choice is real.; People own their phones and should decide what runs on them, just as they choose what programs to install on a personal computer, and a phone maker should not get to veto that choice after the sale..
Bottom line: The disagreement turns on whether the protection a mandatory reviewed store offers is worth handing one company control over what everyone can install.

Structural Checks

Finding	How serious	What it means
Nothing stated would show it false	a note	No testable prediction is listed, so as written there is no observation that would count against this belief.

Faults the shape of the argument can show without reading a word of it: a claim used to support itself, a conclusion listed among its own premises, the same page counted twice. None of these changes a score. The wiki also specifies pattern-matching the prose for ten named fallacies; that is deliberately not done here, because a matcher looking for “attacking the person rather than the argument” would fire on the central legitimate argument on this whole site, and a score moved by a regular expression has no page to appeal to.

Scoring EngineTruth scores →

Quantity	Value	How
Argument score	+0.00	argument rows: weight for minus weight against
Evidence score	+0.00	evidence rows: weight for minus weight against
Prediction contribution	+0.00	prediction rows, same signed formula as every other row
Belief score	+0.00	the three lines above added together
Positive total	0.00	every row whose signed contribution came out positive, from either side
Negative total	0.00	every row whose signed contribution came out negative, as a magnitude
Starting point	0.50	where this claim starts before any of its own rows count: Nothing observed: no source type recorded, so this claim starts at a coin flip
Weight of the starting point	1.00	k x a bounded reward for independent replication, k = 1, capped at 2.0 x k
Truth score, argued	0.50	(positive + weight x starting point) / (positive + negative + weight)
Truth score	0.50	argued truth, capped by the weakest load-bearing component that has its own page
ReasonRank	0.0033	how much of the site depends on this page: rank 129 of 2173. The share of a walk that starts at the 162 beliefs and steps to the pages they read, with a 0.85 chance of stepping on each time
Work value	0.0023	ReasonRank x (1 - confidence): how much settling this page would be worth to everything above it
Completeness	yes	at least one scored reason on each side (an importance page: at least one interest; an interest page: both readings filled)

Cite this page Phone makers should be allowed to require that every app on their devices pass through an app store they review. Idea Stock Exchange, belief page phone-makers-allowed-require, truth 0.50, confidence 32%, revision 42c8344 of 2026-10-04. The revision is what makes this quotable: these numbers move as the argument is worked on, and rebuilding that revision reproduces them exactly.

Every number on this page as data: phone-makers-allowed-require.json. Constants: K = 1 · UNARG = 0.5 · DEFLINK = 1 · DEFIMP = 0.5 · DEFUNIQ = 1. A reason placed under a conclusion is presumed relevant until a linkage page says otherwise; the burden is on the challenger. The neutral start for importance, the wiki's own rule.

Every value here is computed from the tables above at build time. Nothing is typed.