My understanding is that this goes further than what is currently in place in the EU. The word "automatically" is used repeatedly whereas in the EU you need to request a refund (and provide detailed info about the flight). I am not aware of EU protection about lost luggage either, although that might just be me being uninformed.

Why would there be such a need? If Facebook follows existing EU law then EU is happy with Facebook, it's that simple. For some reason Facebook keeps looking for loopholes instead of following the law. In fairness they are not the only ones, just a very big player. As soon as they give their users the option to not be tracked without it having consequences on the service they receive, the EU will be happy.

No contractual agreement is above the law. If Facebook's EULA says you have to pay them in human kidneys and the law forbids trading human kidneys, then you will have no trouble accepting the idea that Facebook should either change their business model or go out of business, regardless of consent. Is it so complicated to accept that we need similar protection of privacy?

Patterns and passwords can be spied on pretty easily and nowadays there's cameras everywhere, so that's pretty bad as well.

Yeah yeah and the problem with pissing on her tomb is that you eventually run out of piss.

This is a commonly heard argument from right wing nut jobs. There is zero evidence to support it. When was the last time the US military saved its citizens from authoritarians? Of all the international conflicts the US has been involved in, how many were with foreign powers threatening the freedom of expression of US civilians in the US?

There are two issues with your reasoning.

First, you ignore the fact that this kind of bad behaviour has been the norm of IDF for decades and keeps being so. There is no plausible deniability at this point. No official PR changes that. In fact the Hamas is still way behind the IDF in terms of civilian victims. Unless you have a very long list of the IDF sending its soldiers to jail for every crime they commit, as well as changes in education and policy it has been enforcing, you need to open your eyes and see all the crimes this army has been committing as defining its culture. This is a criminal organisation doing crime, consistently over decades.

Second, you equate Palestinians with Hamas. I am not sure why but out of kindness I will assume that it is because you are ignorant rather than malicious.

It is true what they say, US folks will use *anything* but the metric system. How many bald eagles' wingspans would that be?

You have stated an opinion, but no argument to support it.

The fact is that many parents are very ignorant about sexuality, which,if they are to be trusted with the sexual education of their children, can have pretty bad consequences on their children: STDs, unwanted pregnancy for teenagers, inability to realise that people are allowed to say no despite social pressure (to name a few). Also I don't know how you remember your own upbringing, but many discover sexuality at a time in their lives where their parents are the last persons on Earth they want to talk to about sexuality.

Lumping together porn and child porn by pretending one is simply a subset of another, that's very low. You might as well say they are both a subset of entertainment to generalise regulation to all forms of entertainment.

The bit that makes child porn illegal, reprehensible and harmful is not "porn" but "child". Because the children are being harmed and they have no agency. If you're also worried about adult porn where the adults do not consent, there the issue is again not "porn" but "lack of consent".

I am confused, two messages above you are against government doing central planning on a large scale but now you are advocating for it, what am I missing?

That's a defensible perspective, even though it's not mine. I can see its advantages in general. Now our issue at hand is reversing global warming. How do you suggest we solve that with minimal government intervention and minimal taxes?

What do you suggest that will work better? We've been trying "the free market" and it has put us in this current situation.

Give people economic safety and much of that incentive will disappear. People with proper income don't mug.

I don't see a need to challenge studies that I know nothing about. There are also many people who are happier once they open their sex life, and people who can't be happy in a traditional exclusive relationship.

What I challenge is that the sexual activity itself is harmful in any way.

However one thing is clear, people should only engage in sexual activities if they really want to do it for themselves, and not for any of a number of bad reasons such as pleasing someone, peer pressure, societal pressure to perform, etc. They also teach you that in sex ed.