If it can't be safely used the airline would be forced to disable it. They do so for seats in front of an exit row.

That's not true. They prevent it on seats where the airline KNOWs in advance it would be an issue or that they need to prevent it due to regulatory requirements.

If you could recline at an exit row, then you are creating a safety hazard for everyone on the aircraft, not just a person behind you.

For other seats; whether there is a safety issue or not, depends on the length of the legs of the passenger behind you.

In most cases it would be safe and fine, and in some rarer cases it would not be safe at all.

The airline has no way of knowing this in advance, so they are allowing the feature and leaving it up to the judgement of the passengers.

If the passengers aren't mature enough to respect each other's health and ability to not have their knees busted, then perhaps they do actually need to stop assuming passengers have good judgement and just disable across the board.

Or pressure on the customers to pay more. Guess which one is automatic?

This is why it's so important to make sure there can't be any major mobile carriers doing any further consolidation and buying out of competition. Customers should be free to move away from carriers that will want them to pay more.

Don't get me wrong.... I hate video autoplay.

But I feel that things like this will ultimately result on pressure on carriers to correct the real problem: The dataplan allowances are way too low, AND 1 Gigabyte of data is priced way too high.

So by having autoplay..... ordinary folks will be using more data, BUT they're not going to want to pay a lot, so there is going to be pressure on carriers to increase data allowances

But as long as there are not so many problems as to damage their bottom line, they can just blame the incidents on the passengers

They just need to work out the extra cost of diverting the flight and bill the passengers responsible. Problem should fix itself.

Remove the capability of all seats to recline.

The debate arises, because seats are capable of reclining by default, AND when the feature exists, the person feel's entitled to use it.

Therefore... I suggest removing the capability altogether, or use seats where the recline button will be a feature that requires paying for the seat behind you and pushing a button behind your seat to enable recline.

If that space was yours my seat wouldn't be able to recline into it.

No... your seat has the mere technical ability to recline. There is no piece of paper you get when you get on the plane that tells you that you have a right or entitlement to recline it.

The airlines simply have a standard seat, which has that capability to in some cases recline. They maintain the standard seat, even when they move them around.

It may very well be that the seats have features that can no longer safely and appropriately be used anymore, due to the removal of space behind them, OR that can only be safely and appropriately used when a short or small passenger is sitting behind you.

Your personal space ends at the seat in front of you, in whatever position that may be.

In other words: you are part of the problem, because you've already taken the side of whoever's messing with the position of their seat, without regard to the well-being of whoever's being smashed by the seat just in front of them.

If you restrict the backrest of the seat in front of you, you're violating the personal space of the passenger in front of you.

You could equally say; your personal space ends at the chair at your but. If your backrest won't move b/c it is somehow restricted, and you are trying to force your backrest to join with the body of the person sitting behind you, then you are definitely violationg the personal space of the passenger behind you.

It's when idiots use something like Knee Defender that the system falls apart.

The existence of a button does not a convey the right to use it. The president likely has a "Nuke Russia" button, but felt no reason to push it in response to the Ukraine issue. Why do you think that is?

The knee defender is also a product designed to solve a certain problem, that people with that problem have the right to buy and use.

Namely: the tyranny of people on an airplane randomly smashing your knees or equipment by pushing their recline button spontaneously with no warning.

And it does fine addressing the symptoms of the problem, But not the root cause...... greedy airlines do not provide passengers a reasonable amount of space.

And they constantly force passengers into a situation where one person's comfort, health, and freedom of movement will be invaded upon, in favor of another passenger's increased comfort.

One thing they haven't tried yet is hexagonal packing. Any physicist, chemist or minerologist can tell you hexagonal is denser packing than rectangles.

Perhaps... as each passenger steps on a plane, they will be packed into a body-fitting padded egg shell capsule and then dropped into a slot. In the event of a crash, the shell will also double as a flotation device.

Nobody will have any freedom of movement, but they will at least achieve the maximum possible number of bodies, as they can stack passengers both horizontally and vertically and on top of one another.

The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

Because their boss/other person bought the ticket, and they aren't paying extra for luxury booking.

because you fell afoul of the new law against operating an unauthorized UAC simulation on the Internet.

This makes our job even easier to prove they have overstepped their regulatory authority. Once there is a major 1st amendment issue of this magnitude involved, the supreme court will take the case!

Is that all we do to tyrants, now? If you were my grandson, I'd have a good long talk with your father for raising you to be such a pansy.

To which the reply is... why don't you go eat shit and jump off a cliff?

If I could afford to buy/build a drone of my own; I would do so, flaunt the FAA's unlawful claims of regulatory authority, and I would encourage all my neighbors to do so as well.

Any attempted actions would be prosecuted against the FAA in court to the full extent of the law.

Then there is one simple solution DMCA Counternotice

Take the service provider off the hook. If the developer then wants to continue to pursue that line of argument, then he/she will have to sue Mojang. In order to claim any statutory damages in doing so, the developer will have to have registered the copyrights formally with the copyright office when the work was originally done.

How many people are willing to follow copyright law but not import/export laws?

US-based companies accepting bitcoin payments and sending goods digitally that register only an e-mail address to setup an account --- aren't operating in Argentina and have zero compliance burden with regard to Argentenian import laws.

They don't care and they won't make the effort to figure it out; they will simply treat everyone as guilty.

And if they do, they will get challenged in court by 100,000 people they can't win against.