Companies are not human beings, so they do not innately gain constitutional protection merely be existing. If the ruling is based on "balancing" manipulating "public discourse" being bad, hasn't he court essentially arguing that these companies are public spaces? Which would protect individual speech on these platforms, which is what this law seeks to do. And anything that will move towards 230 being struck down or removed is a good outcome, as it would replace inflexible government regulations with nuanced tort law (see the recent Wired article on the 230 issue, which once you get past the knee-jerk waa-waa geek reaction over threats to 230 makes that argument very well).

That would be the fix, to get rid of that difference, i.e. any content filtering beyond that which is required by law loses their section 230 protection. The only content I see on Facebook in my feed is posts/likes from my friends (and Facebook provides tools to manage that) and then content from Facebook as a publisher (ads, news, etc.). If my friend Guido posts a picture with a swastika, it's up to me to filter Guido, and only Guido's friends will see said swastika (or people that have personally chosen to see posts of friends of friends). People have always had the ability to flush all but Facebook forced content. There is no way for me to see content not from my friends if I have selected the proper settings and Facebook isn't trying to serve it to me. That should hopefully cause Facebook to be very careful about what they push into people's feeds, and eliminate them trying to shut down people they don't agree with... if they wish to continue to be a platform only with 230 protections.

The example above about fishing farming fails because a critical part of free markets is property ownership. When other people release their pollution from the water they own into my water, that's trespass (I did not give them permission to dump waste on my property) and theft (it's stealing the economic value of my property). A good libertarian / believer in free markets will have respected others property rights and found some way not to pollute, putting him in a position to take those that do pollute to court and sue them for damages. It is that threat which forces others to install filters or pursue some other course of action to not pollute. The purpose of rule of law is to enforce consequences for violating others negative rights, which ensures that free markets can operate correctly.

That's what competition in a free market does, either reduce prices or increase what you get for the same amount of money. If you try and keep your prices high, someone else will come along and undersell you as a way to take your market share and income. Taxes have been slowly increasing for the last 30 years. You're confusing crony capitalism with the free market. Crony capitalism is where government regulations allow companies to lock out competition and artificially increase prices.

I finally saw one person get close to stating the blindly obvious, the emperor-has-no-clothes statement. To be more blunt, any income tax on a company just increases the costs of its goods or services, which means the citizens that buy those goods or services pay those taxes through increased costs of goods and services. There is no miraculous spontaneous creation of money by a corporation existing, it's money comes from selling something. The selling price includes all costs. If you drop corporate income taxes to zero, as long as you have a free market, prices will drop to reflect the reduction in costs. And that means that individuals will have more money (either to spend or to pay more taxes with).

Summary indicates that the stratosphere will shrink (get lower), and this will negatively impact satellites. But a reduction in atmospheric friction means satellites will be able to remain in orbit longer, that the energy reserves they have to maintain a low orbit will last longer, and less friction also means less physical wear and tear. Summary doesn't pass the basic smell test. In any case this hysteria is all based on a belief in the fixed pie fallacy. Higher demand for energy means greater rewards for finding ways to produce more energy at a lower cost. The need for innovation drives scientific and engineering exploration and innovation. Paradigm and incremental advancement means a solution will be found but often cannot be predicted. Back of the napkin engineering chops says "climate change" can be fixed for less than $100 billion with a basic Apollo project (and does not require a global bureaucracy taxing trillions of dollars), and long complex scientific front by an ex-Obama administration source says "climate change" alarmists are using outdated data sets as that's the only way to substantiate their claims and maintain the political power grab they are attempting. It's about time the smart people woke up and started not relying on the little boy to declare the emperor has no clothes.

As someone who experienced the actual impact of ACA, it moved US health care in a very bad direction. Insurance costs skyrocketed as everyone was forced to pay for the platinum package and insurance companies jacked rates pre-emptively in anticipation of that occuring, a lot of people were lied to by President Obama (you can keep your plan), and it wasn't economically sustainable (as young people instead paid the tax fine and companies exited state plans in droves). But I hardly expect him to admit that in his own book. The free market is the only way to ensure that health care costs are affordable as it limits people to paying what they can afford. Reducing regulations that enable crony capitalism allows new actors to enter the market with innovative solutions that can reduce costs and/or improving service (such as nurses at Walmart/CVS or new drugs or outcare centers, etc.). The only way that the government can reliably run health care is if it triages costs to what society can truly afford (which is an adult conversation I'm no longer sure we have enough vocal moderates to actually have), and elected politicians cannot be relied on to do the right thing in this area as that would mean they're unlikely to get re-elected. The free market has actually generated many cost effective solutions, but gov't regulations have destroyed many of those. It's worth being well informed about the past (for example, https://fee.org/shows/audio/wo...).

Just how critical is broadband to lower income people, versus any sort of internet connection? Are you really going to be in bad straights if instead of watching 4k movies off Netflix, you have to read a book, work on a hobby or talk with your family? The websites I tend to think of as critical are functional and accessible without broadband. Doesn't broadband just enable higher resolution video and quicker big downloads?

Sure, why not. So what does incite insurrection mean? (yes, I know, there is a legal definition, but your comment implies you believe it covers something from what I can tell it does not). Who decides (i.e. do you know what tyranny of the majority means)? For genocide we face the same problem, who decides, and does everyone trust that source? The problem with creating tools of power is that they can then be used by someone else later on, not just the wonderful person you were sure wouldn't abuse them now. Who watches the watchers?

Cherry picking data and taking data out of context to try and make an argument - ouch. 400,000 deaths instead of 1,600,000-2,200,000 deaths (per the CDC). Ratings at some instance in time let's us know you're cherry picking a statistic from when it suits your argument, not when it's most applicable. I remember seeing headlines many times during his four years noting his approval rating was higher than President Obama's at the same point when he was in office. If you're blaming President Trump for a net loss of 3,000,000 jobs, then you'll also have to account for the recovery from the 40,000,000 or more million jobs lost due to the economic shutdown imposed by mostly democratic party governors. That means he's also responsible for the recovery of 37,000,000 million jobs that were lost due to the actions of others. We can also look at jobs before the economic shutdown, which were up, with historic lows in unemployment by minority groups. As far as impeachment, the consensus of what I've read is that the democrats have pretty much guaranteed that going forward every president is going to be impeached at some point if the opposing party gains control of the House (or at least face an impeachment proceeding regardless). So the democrats have accomplished something - making impeachment meaningless. Joe Biden will be impeached in two years when the Republicans take control of the House (given the trends seen in the 2020 election). As far as what I've been able to determine, the people who broke into the capital building did not attend the rally and so could not have heard the President's speech (cell phones were being blocked across DC that night apparently). Said speech which every legal expert whose opinion of it I've read indicates it does not meet any legal standard of incitement. From the wailing and gnashing of teeth by progressives of all stripes on both sides of the aisle over the last four years, and the fact that his administration removed five regulations for every one that was added over four years (any chance you remember Vice-President Al Gore's huge pile of government regulations that he promised to reduce?), I think President Trump has done pretty well for a four-year president that was fighting an uphill battle the whole time.

You can transfer your library, playlists, etc. to YouTube Music. It gets kept in your library/uploads section, and they finally a month or so ago added the ability to stream your uploaded library via Chromecast without your phone screen being on and without having to pay for their music service. The most major negative is that trying to scroll through all tracks or albums in the app or website is painful slow as it only loads 20 or so lines at a time. I'm not sure what other features are not porting over, but that was the most critical for me. You will not get your "Recently Purchased" playlist as that was autogenerated. But if you kept all your purchase emails, you can identify what you bought and recreate that (fortunately I hadn't bought too many albums). I had six tracks that could not be copied over, which probably includes the missing five single track purchases that are not in my YT upload library. The $6 I'm out is is not enough to make me want to wade through what customer support they may have.

I think your points are going to run into problems with property ownership and public space expectations. If you take your clothes off in the middle of a public park, you have no expectation of a right of privacy. If you do so in a bathroom in your house, you do. It can get trickier on someone else's property, but I suspect the law has stabilized expectations in that arena as well, i.e. you can expect privacy in a bathroom, but not on the main floor of a business. Employers have certain rights and restrictions as well because employment is voluntary, just as is entering a business. I also very much suspect that it takes more than a very bad video to get someone convicted.

1. I think here we're really talking about warrants. The police still need to produce a warrant to request video from a private owner, and that should extend to usage of public/gov't-owned video. If they "take" the video from it's source without a warrant, that should be thrown out in a court of law. The police operate under rules governing the proper collection of evidence for use in a court case. We just need to make sure those laws properly apply to the usage of video, just like with any other source of information.

2. Unfortunately you are making a Luddite argument here. It would be like basing an argument in 1908 because cars could go 10 miles an hour. The one constant with technology that's of great use is that it improves. The quality of cameras, available data storage, etc. are only going to increase and improve. So this is an issue that will go away. It only applies to the past, not to the future.

3. This is essentially the argument that because we don't have perfect enforcement, we should get rid of all laws. Humans are inherently flawed, this is going to be a given in any system involving human beings. There fore the real question is, what system minimizes that, not whether it will occur or not.

4. It's getting better every day, and again, the system is designed to minimize convictions on poor evidence, such as grainy videos. If you can make this point, a defense lawyer can probably do so even better to a jury.

5. This system already exists via paper, making it electronic just makes it more efficient. The proper response is to make sure that laws are properly rewritten to make sure that new ways of collecting evidence still have to comply with existing processes. It's up to our governments to revise the body of law so that holes are sealed up.

The correct non-luddite response to new technologies is not to ban them because bad people misuse them, it's to ensure that the existing expectations of proper behavior are properly codified.

And as for the new boyfriend, dads should have a 100% ability to review every part of a young man's life that wants to date their daughter. Dads are men, we know exactly what's going on in your disgusting perverted head, and if you try that with our daughter, not ending up dead after we get through with you is a good outcome for you. Definitely there should be broken limbs, gelding, and branding in obvious spots so its easier for the next dad to clear you off with a shotgun and to prevent any repeated bad behavior. : )

The US is producing, what, 40% of it's energy by burning petroleum in any case. By the 1990s they had developed extremely clean burning incinerators that turned waste into energy. Here's an article from 2013:

https://energynews.us/2013/10/...

No, it very much falls back on the parents to raise their children as responsible adults. That includes that their children know how advertising works, and to minimize their children's exposure to ads while young. Knowledge is power. All advertisers are doing is making use of human psychology to maximize sales of a product by making the best appeal possible to those most likely to make or influence a purchase. It loses a lot of its power once you understand what is being attempted. Ad targeting means the person most likely to be interested in a product is the one who sees the ad, which maximizes the potential impact while minimizing the expense of advertising as much as possible (efficiency). It also guarantees that what advertising I see as payment for what shows I watch for no other cost is going to be the least waste of my time possible. And there are other good reasons as well, which those old enough to have watched lots of TV with broad general audience advertising will understand (there are things I just don't want to know that others need :).

I've done the research, so go ahead and use Nova Launcher Pro (50M+ downloads, a 4.6 rating with 1M reviews) or Nova Launcher Prime (over 1M downloads and a 4.7 with over 333k reviews). The 3-4 market surveys I read placed Nova at or near the top every time. It behaves just fine on my old Pixel XL with Android 10, so it should do even better with newer faster phones. And you can back up your layout to the cloud, so the next time you replace your phone, just reinstall Nova and restore from back up and you don't have that new phone pain of restoring your layout. And if you need to troubleshoot your phone, you just run the original Pixel Launcher and tell it its the default and Nova is no longer a factor to troubleshoot.