Reporters often exaggerate these stories to attract readers/viewers/clicks. In the past I have had a chance to observe such stories from inside and outside, and the distortions were extreme.
If Google was really that bad, they would have trouble finding people to work there. But this is not the case.
Also consider stories about other companies. How does J.P. Morgan compare?

It's you. :) The reporters need to write about stories about angry Googlers, meanwhile there are people applying for jobs at Google by thousands.

Just don't talk about CANCELLATIONS of fractions!

One problem with people not getting vaccinate is that the virus will circulate among them. As long as the virus is able to circulate it can mutate and potentially create a version that is resistant to current vaccines. Then we are back to square one.

Perhaps my idea of what Manichean means wasn't quite correct. But I was also thinking of other religions besides Christianity. Islam or maybe Scientology as other examples, where the great conflict is between Good vs. Evil.

An organization where members "get a rewarding sense of connection through their shared, Manichean world view" sounds a lot like a religion.

Sigh. This is Slashdot. You are suppose to know how email works. You are expected to know that once sent emails cannot be destroyed, because each server through which they flow will archive them (especially government servers).

And this is because of laws passed by Congress to give the TV networks access to public airwaves. There is no such law for hosting internet apps.

It's only censorship if it is done by the government. You can say anything you want, but New York Times has no obligation to publish it. Similarly, Amazon can decided not to have you as a client. You can still set up your own server and publish things that way.

In a similar way, when a baker does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple. Conservatives supported his right to do so. Isn't the refusal by Amazon the same?

Saying that algorithm makes a choice is misleading. Most of these system use machine learning, which takes person's clicks and "builds" an algorithm for that person to find things that will "engage" them.

So if I like Qannon consipiracy, the machine built for me will feed me more Qannon stuff.

Facebook etc, do take down things that horrible - violent content etc - but that's hardly the same job as editors do in traditional newspapers.

Usual quote about Ayan Rand and Tolkien applies:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old&quotes life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Can you provide an example of Slashdot censoring such advice?

Usually this takes two forms: actively downplaying anyone who questions a proprietary software narrative and noticing that the preponderance of comments come from the perspective of accepting proprietary software as legitimate. For the former, try looking for any links to pages on GNU.org's proprietary page where examples that challenge the legitimacy of proprietary control over the user are listed (in a highly organized way both by subject matter with commentary, and by organization). Posts with links to that page (or its subpages) are frequently down moderated and comments from other posters (who ostensibly don't use moderation points) never suggest why. For the latter, one recent example came up where Microsoft was said to "experiment with moving key Control Panel features" much to the chagrin of users who posted in that thread. One response makes a point which tries to engender the reader's sympathy for Microsoft, "Microsoft is in a no win situation, here.". There is no apparent awareness of Windows completely not respecting a user's software freedom. The way for Windows users to win their freedom is to not run Microsoft Windows or any other proprietary software where they are subject to a proprietor's control.

I'm not sure what an "establishment media repeater site" is.

Establishment media is media that frames an issue within the acceptable limits of debate so as to not challenge the wealthiest and most powerful people or organizations. In the context of published computer software that would mean articles which frame the debate around convenience and cost while ignoring software freedom. Proprietary control is assumed and one is supposed to debate which variant of control is appropriate among the available choices. Rarely the terms of debate go to misframing an issue as though software choice is paramount instead of a scam: arguing which is a better word processor, for instance—Microsoft Word or WordPerfect—satisfies choice (there's more than one of them) but ignores that both programs are proprietary and deny the user control over their computer.

It's not hard to see how the ills of proprietary software are ignored and software freedom is never mentioned: in a story about listening devices (Amazon's Alexa, Google's Home, etc.) listening in on people's discussions that are supposed to be confidential and the adverse effect for legal discussions, you don't find much in the way of systemic discussion which frames the debate around how many programs listen in on people and how little control users have over the devices they've surrounded themselves with. One poster asked "Why are you bringing those devices into your house in the first place?" and suggested the alternative of controlling home automation "via an app on your phone, tablet, or computer". The poster said "Siri [is] turned off on all of my devices". The irony is quite rich when one thinks structurally and considers that Siri is proprietary software running on a computer built to give the user only as much control as the proprietor wants them to have. Another poster made a claim beyond available evidence, "You can look at the Alexa app on your phone and see everything that it's transmitted back to the mother ship." which also isn't a structurally advisable view for the same reason as I mentioned before. If data is available the proprietor doesn't want the user to know about, it's not hard to accomplish this. And the real vetting for this spying won't come in the form of checking a page of clips provided by the proprietor. Such vetting will come from vetting complete corresponding source code to the relevant software in order to learn what is possible (not what a UI is designed to reveal) which is exactly what software freedom respects and what these systems deny.

And also maybe stop using the service entirely since they're complete liars and can't even do the one thing they're supposed to do.

Be careful on sites like this when you recommend something like that. /., Hacker News, and so many other establishment media repeater sites usually censor logical, reasonable, defensible advice that results in not handing over one's freedom to businesses. One could reach the same conclusion about, say, running Microsoft's proprietary software when it is revealed that Microsoft harangues users about installing Firefox or Chrome, displayed ads for Microsoft products and its partners' products, forced Windows 10 on Windows 7 and 8 users, blatantly disregarded user choice and privacy, and more. The reason Microsoft can exert such power over the user is that the software is proprietary (the software doesn't respect one's freedom to run, inspect, share, or modify the software). Users might think that a major point of having an operating system is to make the computer do what the user wants their computer to do, just as users of a no-log VPN service expect that that service won't keep revealing logs. Pointing out when businesses lie to their users is typically not received well among those who uncritically read establishment media.

Coding is a useful skill, one which can be picked up while also learning a far more practical language than Swift (such as the other languages the grandparent poster mentioned—Scheme, Python, Ruby, C, or some other language). Learning proprietor-specific stuff to gear your knowledge around what only a proprietor offers is not going to get you the well-rounded "coding" skill you approvingly referred to and such focus isn't likely to help you make money either. Most programming jobs won't revolve around such a narrow focus as Swift.