This was and is a scandalous comparison, like others below have already pointed out.
Even though I really dislike Disney and would never give a penny to them, it was completely appropriate for them to fire such a person.
A private company has all the right to choose not to be associated with a person with such extreme views (there are many more issues than this statement alone).

I think most of these are superficial changes compared to the 1970s, no real progress on a fundamental level (i.e. science).

If enough people think alike, they lose their "business model".

How can you compare the denial of a historical fact, the denial thereof is abused by those that might want to repeat the tragedy, with denial of a belief system?

Make the presentation of the Muhammad cartoons part of the standard curriculum everywhere.
Irritate the extremists and intolerant aggressive religous people so much and widespread, that they don't know where to begin with their attacks and hatred.

I watched porn too as a kid (around 10), end of the 70s. It was easy to come by.

B.t.w. research shows kids are not damaged by porn, only by violence, and by violent porn of course.
But violence seems to be totally accepted on TV, I have hardly seen any poticitians stir outrage about that topic.

Movies are hardly cancelled in the middle of the story.
Unless you have the follow-up movies (almost like series), usually a bad sign.
Series also protract the story and take up too much time in many cases.

You assume a lot. B.t.w. THC is technically not a narcotic (maybe according to some laws).

There are clear links between alcohol, tobacco and child health. Also apparently some (weaker it seems) to THC.
There are many other negative correlations, with some medicines, too much sugar or otherwise bad diet or lack of vitamines, even some of the widely used painkillers. Also it depends on the amount. Yes and some people are more disciplined than others. Half a glass of wine per week is not good, but not a disaster. My mother smoked and drank a bit during pregnancy (in the 1960s) and I've come out fine as a physicist.

We cannot ban everything to protect a few. It has proven to be practically impossible, and very expensive in terms of money and human suffering.

Most of the drugs laws are clearly counter productive, and an immoral restriction of personal freedom, for most people who are repsonsible.
This study changes nothing about that.

I think this is cultural and might be a reflection of the peoples mentaliity, which is why the USA are destroying themselves at the moment.
There are areas where people are more idealistic indeed, and those tend to fare better in the long run.
The USA seem to have lost that, due to prolonged exposure to the evil power of money and greed.

This archaic system of supreme court, clearly not designed for todays hyper-politicized and immoral world, should be abolished.

From the outside view, it is like a theocracy, where the consitution is Gods Law and the supreme court are the Ayatollahs, ruling over the will of the clear majority for decades to come.

I think a first step would be to indeed blow up the court by adding many new justices, and then have them abolish themselves in some way.

Those Americans, so uninterested and uninformed about the rest of the world. Btw I'm not French but from northern Europe.

I am all for reigning in Facebook, Google and the likes. They have become too powerful in the world, and as corporations are not democracies, this automatically subverts democracy and will lead to bad outcomes (we're already seeing that).

But actions will be ineffective in the long run, and even cause more collateral damage, if linking and reusing information would become (too) regulated.

Instead, the actual issue is that customers are paying for products with their personal data, which leads to targeted advertisements, incentives to generate clicks, algorithms that amplify bad emotions and fake news etc. etc. Most of the customers think they do so willingly, but are not aware of the devastating consequences for society as a whole, and for them personally if they have a bit of bad luck.

That is the issue that should be resolved. Advertisement must be limited by law, in one form of the other. Even those that have a religious belief in the sanctity of free markets and expression, will have to see sooner or later that the freedom they are trying to protect, will be wiped away be the consequences of this.

Free services with hidden cost should be banned, and the whole business model that underpins Facebook, Google and some others must go away.

I guess, Facebook and Google, now fighting these illogical laws, would be very happy if the counter forces would be only this, instead of what is actually needed, the end of a large part of their business model.

The incompetent need the next scapegoat.

Agree, same situation. the add on features are crappy and too expensive, I hate the feeling of paying for something that is already that and has already been produced, and I hate subscriptions too (longer term financial commitments). I hope strongly such models will either fail in the market, or the market economy is replaced by something better.

Trump decides this, not the media, by the way he behaves. It is a logical consequence of his behaviour. Those that don't want to understand that, belong in the same camp that should be ostracized.