Do we really want an Internet that, with regard to the U.S. consumer, is essentially owned and operated by Comcast/Xfinity?

Whatever Comcast's failings, I wager, you'll find the Internet owned and operated by the government far worse. I predict mandatory "child-protection" filters, for example. Also, any time you violate the service terms (which will be copied from those of commercial providers), you will be committing a crime (however small), rather than merely breaking contract. Oh, and the tech-support will not only be incompetent, but also rude — because, being government employees, they will be impossible to fire.

the more competition that can be arranged the better

A government entering a market — any market — is the end of competition in it.

Roads (and rail-roads), health-care, electricity and telephone — government and government-sanctioned monopolies provide such outstanding services, only a fool or a sell-out would try to prevent their scope from expanding. Tokyo may have competing privately-owned subway lines, but we here in America know better than that!

Take Municipal WiFi — which the young and progressive generation was hailing on this very site only 10 years ago — was not that a roaring success, that swept over the nation?

What country's first ammendment guarantees you the right to intimidate or harass people online?

What country equates complaining about rudeness with intimidation and harassment? Probably, not even North Korea...

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

Yes, there is, of course. As described in TFA, the woman certainly qualifies for the term. Anybody abusing their power over others is a bad person ("bitch", "asshole" — pick your gender-specific name). And, in addition, malicious prosecution — which she threatened to bring upon him — is a felony, you know...

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening.

If complaining on Tweeter about rudeness can be considered either "intimidating" or "threatening" — or, indeed, "interfering" — then the First Amendment is null and void. Is that, what you are telling us?

"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft [emphasis mine -mi]] being operated under this part."

The gate-agent being talked about was not aboard the aircraft (nor part of the crew). In other words, your citation is invalid and inapplicable even if it were appropriate for a stewardess or a pilot on board.

the tweet identified someone by name.

Her name is publicly displayed. There is nothing "intimidating" about repeating it — or even taking pictures.

there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

Whether the victim was "reasonable" or not is not being discussed. The agent threatened him with arrest over his accusing her of rudeness. What else would you blame a victim for? How about posting a negative review of a restaurant? Maybe, we "should be more like Europe" and punish people for that too?

NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.

But he did follow all instructions — and was allowed to board. What the bitch didn't like was him tweeting about the encounter afterwards.

Personally, I found out the hard way, what these assholes mean. I once pointed out to a New Jersey Transit conductor, that he is closing the doors one minute too early. He demanded, I leave the train in reply... I kid you not, he called police, who ordered me out and interrogated me on the platform (three uniformed bums plus one plain-clothed "detective"). They found nothing to arrest me for, but said (sternly): "You'll have to wait for the next train" (and left me on the empty platform as the train closed its doors — again — and left). It was all "legal": the rules, which you wish all of us to obey, are posted in every car. And they require passengers to "cooperate" with the conductors. Whether or not a particular passenger cooperates, is entirely up to each conductor. And, yes, he still works there — despite my complaining several times.

No flight-attendant — nor a train conductor, for that matter — should have the power to evict a passenger from a plane (or train). Other than for an offense, that's, indeed, subject to arrest.

given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important.

What has recently happened in aviation, that makes you think, safety is important?

So, he says, you should make sure you buy new hardware only when necessary, not just because of the "Ooh... shiny!" factor"

What's new about this advice? Was it not as useful and applicable 50, 100, and 1000 years ago?

Employing a Marxist theory of capitalism to refute socialism? Fascinating.

Yes, employing an opponent's own theory to prove him wrong is, usually, the most reliable way to deliver defeat in detail to him. Because, although all of us may have different views on life, the views must be self-consistent to be respectable.

All of this is true. But your excellent write-up does nothing to justify the AC's attempt to call US "fascist"...

- The ad says, you offer a quest, said Halfelf to the Mayor. But it does not explain, what sort of quest. Could you clarify?
- It is really simple - shrugged the Mayor. See that hill? There is a goblin on top of it with a grenade-launcher. Periodically he begins shooting at the town. That's, basically, the problem...
- Ok, understood. We must kill the goblin...
- Oh, no! Mayor's eyes widened and he started waving his hands. He can must not be killed under any circumstances!
- Why? - asked Gnome? He is a goblin!
- That's just it! If we kill him, the world community will say, it was genocide and we are all racists.
- So what? Let them whatever...
- ... And send in troops, - gloomily added the Mayor.
- Khm... - thought Halfelf aloud - So, this shithead shoots at you from a grenade-launcher, and you tolerate it and would not hit back?
- Right, admitted the Mayor. Otherwise, we'll be called "aggressors".
- Alright, how about, perhaps, not kill him, but push him out some place far?
- From his hill? Impossible! Then they'll call us "occupiers".
- Catch him and take the grenade-launcher away?
- "Expropriators".
- Lock him up together with the weapon?.. Ok, Ok, don't answer, - quickly added Halfelf, when the Mayor started opening his mouth. - I understand. An interesting case indeed.
- So, what do you want from us? - asked the Princess? Can't kill him, can't disarm him, can't be chased away either — what's left? Counsel him? That's not what we do...
- Oh, no... For counseling we would've called for a psychiatrist. But then, by the way, the world community would've accused us of applying psychological pressure.
- And defiling the ancient traditions, - added Gnome, nodding his head. - Shooting at people from a grenade-launcher is part of goblins' traditional pastimes!
- Yes, yes - said the Mayor, - no you understand.
- So, what do you want from us? - asked the Princess again?
- Deliver a parcel to him, - sighed the Mayor.
- To whom? The goblin?
- Yeah. You see, up there on the hill, there is not much food. In about an hour he'll get hungry, announce a cease-fire and begin negotiations. He does that every day. Demands food, wine, weapons, sometimes other things. And then, we eats his full, proclaims, that the negotiations are at a dead-end and he is forced to resume fire. The world community is very sympathetic — they consider him very principled.
- And if you decline to bring him food?..
- Then they'll say, that...
- Ok, ok, we get it, - Poluelf waved his hands. So, why do you need us — why not send your own?
- We have — none came back...
- What? Did goblin kill them all?
- He claims, he did not.
- Huh?..
- And the world community believes him.
- Erm...
- Then they'll accuse us of provocations. You see, it is he, the goblin, who demonstrates peaceful initiative. It is his gesture of good will. If anything went wrong, it can only be our fault. It is obvious... But you are foreigners, maybe, he will not touch you.
- Ok, - summarized Halfelf. - If we shred the political wrappings, we must take the parcel from the customer and deliver it to client, right? A usual mail-quest. And everything else is your own problem. Right?
- Right, - confirmed the Mayor, - agreed?
- One question, - Princess raised her hand. You are so afraid, that the world community will call you "aggressors", "militarists", and worse — what are they calling you now?
- "Idiots," - answered the Mayor with sadness.

Seriously? Twitter? Even if your link really lead to an accusation of a strike on hospital (which it does not), would it have been credible? How about a more reliable source? Oh, sorry, you can't use that, because that page begins with Israel's explanation: "The Israeli military said it had targeted a cache of anti-tank missiles in the hospital's "immediate vicinity".

And we know very well, from sources both impartial and even those biased towards the Arabs, that Hamas does use such civilian buildings for weapons-caches.