Have you tried hiring for manufacturing? I have. We have that many citizens, but they are certainly not ready to go to work in factories. Our society still stigmatizes factory work, kids graduate believing it's dirty work and that they should all be office workers. This is a real problem, you can't expect an industry to grow when people don't want the jobs that are already available.

Paid for or subsidized by our taxes

Paid for or subsidized by our taxes

I'll be honest, I don't understand the net gain if the government still needs to collect the same amount of money to provide the same services. Corporations would be paying sales tax on supplies they need, so if there's a decrease in income tax that's offset by sales tax, they're not really benefiting. If the increase in sales tax is only applicable to consumers, then consumer buying power is greatly diminished and corporations will suffer anyway unless they raise wages to cover that increased sales tax, which effectively leaves them paying the same amount anyway but without control over all their write-offs and whatnot to try and minimize their tax burden. Seems to me like getting rid of the income tax would only encourage people to set up offices here so they can declare their income here and not pay taxes, the same way they do in other tax havens already. The world is a very different place than it was in the 19th century, there's no reason to think removing income tax would result in similar growth to what we had when the country was younger and still being flooded with immigrants desperate for whatever work they could get.

Imagine the backtracking we'd need to do for that, though. Better for politicians to save face and keep blaming Amazon while allowing the service to fail. Plus, if we get rid of the USPS, the vote by mail conversation is completely over. It's win-win, just not for the American people.

This reminds me of when all the manufacturing in the world moved to Oman because there's no income tax there. Or was it Bermuda, where there's also no income tax? Maybe it was Kuwait, where there's also no income tax? Weird how China, where we're trying to get all our manufacturing back from, also has an income tax. It's almost like there might be more to it than that.

There's no need to bring up YouTube being a private company, the US government has already decided harmful misinformation should be restricted. To quote a Supreme Court ruling: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." This is no different, they're shouting "Virus Spreader" or whatever in order to cause a panic about a fictional threat. What you're defending is the right to shout fire in a theater, and suggesting nobody has the authority to tell the person yelling that there isn't a fire and they need to stop causing a panic.

I'll agree that it's a little hairy, free speech issues always are. As with any other right, your right to freedom of speech ends when it's causing harm to others. You could argue that it's not the speaker causing harm, it's the individuals acting on those words, just like it's the people panicking that would cause a problem in the theater. But in both those cases, the individuals are acting on a perceived threat to their own lives, so their actions are just, as we all have a right to defend ourselves. And since the person who caused the panic can't be told they're wrong, you can't really hold them responsible for it, so they're free to cause another panic. And another. Can you not see the flaw in that way of thinking? Maybe if a video comes out painting you or someone you care about as the bad guy you'll see the flaw?

And no, there isn't a need for any infallible authority. Mistakes will be made, sometimes good information will be censored and that does suck. It's a balancing act, there is no definitive "all information should flow freely" or "all false information should be censored" answer here. Anyone with the ability to remove information needs to weigh the value of said information against the potential harm it could cause. To again quote the Supreme Court ruling, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." It'll be subjective, and everyone won't agree on what should be removed, but this is what we as a society have long ago decided to do.

You've also avoided addressing the main point of my argument, which is that allowing the conspiracy theories to spread wildly has a very real cost in human lives. Previously, you made the point that machines can be rebuilt so it's no big deal, what are your thoughts on all the people that have died?

Also, while I'm enjoying this discussion about censorship in general, it's worth pointing out that YouTube didn't remove any videos. They're just not recommending them anymore. You can still find all the misinformation you want, it's just not being thrown in your face so much.

But wait, who made the default a domain they don't control? I'm not saying admins neglecting to change it aren't also to blame, but you can't really say it's the fault of one person for not fixing it and not at all the fault of the people who shipped it out with a problem by default to begin with. It's both! And I'd wager MS had more people checking their work than most admins, and setting the default affected many more than any individual admin not fixing it.

I'm always a little surprised at how many people jump to defend corporations like Microsoft when they make a mistake, messing up doesn't make them a bad company or you a bad person for supporting them. It just means they made a mistake.

But the spreading of this bullshit isn't a breach of trust between people? Seems like spreading falsehoods is the most straightforward breach of trust.

How is the removal of misinformation more damaging to trust than the spreading of misinformation? You're presenting a very one-sided case against censorship while ignoring the problems of allowing these conspiracy theories to be spread. Yes, machines can be rebuilt, but if cell service is down when someone needs to call for help that person can not be replaced. If ventilators become part of the conspiracy theories and people smash those or go after manufacturers, there's no replacing the human lives lost if we lack needed equipment. If that freight train operator had managed to actually hit the Navy hospital ship in California, there'd be no replacing those lives lost. And if you hate hypothetical situations, remember the guy who shot up a pizza joint based on conspiracy theories a few years back? Oh but you might say that building can be fixed, sure. How about the guy who shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed eleven people because he believed in anti-semetic conspiracy theories? The Las Vegas shooter was going on about conspiracy theories before he murdered 58 people and injured almost 900 more, we don't know for certain what his motive was but given he was ranting about them to anyone who would listen in the weeks leading up to the shooting it's not unreasonable to think there's a connection. The Christchurch mosque shooting was perpetrated by a man who seems to believe in the wild conspiracy theory that white people are being replaced, he wrote a 74-page manifesto prior to the rampage full of hate speech and white supremacist rhetoric.

Real harm comes from this shit, and the human lives lost can not be replaced. YouTube is definitely doing the right thing here, it sounds like the videos are still there if you go looking, they're just not recommending them anymore so they can stop actively contributing to the spread of misinformation. If anything, they should've started doing this sooner.

When did Slashdot become a haven for ignorant trolls? I'm asking for evidence, not assuming one way or the other until I see it. This site is worse than reddit, nothing but a circlejerk of twats makings assumptions based on nothing and mass-downvoting anyone who makes a reasonable request for any evidence to support your claims. GJ posting anonymously so nobody can see what a fool you are, coward.

Okay, more anecdotes are specifically not what I'm asking for, I've seen plenty going both ways but I'm looking for solid data on a larger scale. Anecdotes aren't really evidence of anything unless they're being tracked accurately on a large enough scale to become meaningful, at which point they become data. I've seen reports of some of the problems with larger providers, but I haven't seen any way to compare the average experience of businesses using those services to the average experience of businesses relying on in-house infrastructure. I understand it's likely we won't see anything like this any time soon, which is why I don't understand the sweeping statements folks are making about cloud services obviously being good or bad right now. It's a great opportunity to analyze the potential benefits and drawbacks of either approach during a massive usage spike if anyone can manage to accurately collect the data.

Have you seen any data comparing in-house infrastructure to cloud providers right now? I've been very curious about the real differences in performance between the two right now, but all I've seen are anecdotes and folks such as yourself making sweeping statements without presenting any data. I'm sure we all have anecdotes, my own experiences would support what you suggest, but I'd be shocked if every company that ran everything in house was having great success and I'd love to see some numbers showing how folks are doing on a large scale. So if you do have any data, could you link to it? Otherwise you might want to reconsider making such sweeping statements based on assumptions.

Ugh. Here you are again, making statements as if they were facts with no evidence. Where are you finding all this data comparing in-house infrastructure right now to cloud providers? I asked you before on another article and you had none then, either. You've come with anecdotes! But my experience has been the opposite, so that doesn't really carry any weight. You say you have "data," but you haven't actually presented anything supporting your claim. You suggest they wouldn't be giving away their services if their infrastructure was overloaded, but isn't Microsoft openly throttling and disabling services to accommodate the current heavy load? You know they are, that's what the article you were pushing this claim in before was about. I'm honestly curious about the reality of it, but you don't seem to be, you seem to have an axe to grind with in-house infrastructure for some reason. If you have any data actually comparing performance of the two right now on some meaningful scale, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, maybe stop acting like you know things you don't?

Ugh. Why is it that any time I ask for a citation on Slashdot I get another post stating the same assumptions again without any evidence? Is it really so hard to link to whatever source is saying this, or admit there isn't one and your anecdotes and opinions are just that and carry no more weight than my own? It's fine to not know, I don't know what the case is, just don't keep stating something as if it's a fact when it isn't. So, again, do you have anything you can cite that's actually tracking things like this? I am genuinely curious about the reality of it, not more opinions from people with no more data than myself.

What? No, that is absolutely not how it works. Everyone spending money on the same thing does not mean they make just as much money as if they didn't, it just means everyone spends money on the same thing. It's exactly why industries band together against regulations they perceive as unfair, because compliance typically costs money. And you still haven't cited anything to support your argument that the difference between using winter and summer blends would be minimal. I am disappointed, entertain me better.

Citation please? Not saying you're wrong, just seems to me like the oil industry is constantly lobbying the government for things, and if this is really no big deal they would've been lobbying against it already since it costs them money to switch over. I did a quick search and didn't find anything agreeing with you, but obviously you have a source or you wouldn't have said it, so can you link it please?

A few years ago, we had the opposite problem, they had more summer fuel than they would need months before it was time to switch to making winter. They just started making the winter fuel early. The switch from winter to summer production normally happens in April, they could switch now, though they should've already switched as it's not like the global economy just started slowing down yesterday. If they didn't, that's really their own responsibility, and they can eat the costs of having to deal with it. Excess fuel isn't a new problem, it's not as if they finish every season having produced exactly what people will need. Refineries are able to do a better job storing it long-term, anyway, we're not talking about the six month lifespan gas has in a not-really-airtight plastic container. Suggesting we should pollute more because it's convenient is silly, if we behaved that way we wouldn't have an EPA to begin with, or anything left for them to protect.

If these business are up and running enough that they're generating this pollution, what's stopping them from following through with all these commitments they already had? "The biggest change likely will be to waive or postpone coming deadlines to switch to cleaner-burning summer-grade gasoline," seriously they can't manage to switch to a cleaner gasoline despite remaining open? I'm not subscribed to WSJ, somebody please tell me there's at least a major availability issue or something cited in the article to justify this.