It might not matter as much as some things, and it might not matter at all to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

You are on a bicycle. You have no blind spots.

Nah, man . . that there's just metadata !

That's why you should block the javascript responsible for loading the ads too. Usually this is accomplished by blocking all requests to the ad-agencies servers which stops the page from sideloading the scripts.

I know a lot of companies that block most of the ad-sites because of the attack vector ads represent.

Also, ad-heavy sites takes forever to load because the infrastructure supplying the ads sucks. On top of that the ad-agencies are using quite invasive tracking coupled with all the social network connectors that now are more or less standard on every site.

Wrong. The vendors WILL be able to offer reasonable technical assistance. Whether that reasonable technical assistance will lead to the prosecutors getting the data that they want is the question.

I'm not sure you and I are reading the same constitution in regards to corporations. Last I checked, the closest the constitution says about the subject is giving congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. How this affects the power to issue interstate/intrastate corporate charters is in no way "clear" as you claim.

Unless he mutation caused the almost-but-not-quite-chicken to mutate into a chicken, which then laid the first chicken egg...

What is a camera if not a glorified light absorption meter?

So if for example Boeing crashed an experimental prototype business jet, NTSB wouldn't need to be involved since Boeing is a for profit company and only rich people and companies would eventually buy the plane? Is that what you are saying?

Since FAA issued a license for the plane in question NTSB has to investigate the accident, and if the NTSB finds that the plane is unsafe they can recommend the FAA to rescind the license. Thats why NTSB is involved, it has nothing to do with "rich peoples hobbies".

Just because a vendor choose to use something it doesn't mean their users are overwhelmingly supporting it. Usually it just means the users are stuck with the vendors choice.

It validates their sub-point that Google makes the call, but it contradicts the main point which is that a court decided it should be this way, and therefore should get the blame.

X-mas 2016 edition of SystemD:
- now with built in kitchen sink, linux kernel not needed.

Companies usually have a horde of lawyers, a private citizen is lucky if he can afford just one lawyer for a limited time.

Guess who's right the government disregards.