It depends on how cynical you want to be. Corporations will pull sponsorship from events or people that fail to exhibit traits with which they want to be associated. Drop the shoe deal with the sports star who is exposed as a racist or whatever. Of course, does the company really care about race relations, or do they just want to avoid bad press from a populace who does?

I saw commercials recently that CVS Pharmacy stopped selling cigarettes. I don't think anybody was boycotting them over that, or there was any real notice of their tobacco sales at all. And they must have been making non-zero dollars. But perhaps the decline in smoking and hassle of keeping up with laws made the shelf space more valuable for something else.

There are definitely principled companies that are privately held. Pretty sure Ben and Jerry drink their own koolaid.

You're right, though, it's rare. Zuck's billions are not enough. Gotta make more more more even if it means contributing to the oppression of people living under a censorship regime.

Which is perfectly reasonable. If I ran a website over which I had editorial control, I wouldn't post Muhammed pics either because I'd be scared of getting blowed up and my staff killed. But I'd admit it was out of fear, not "respect." I have no respect for people who would kill because of something said or written or expressed.

That's not what the FB deal is about, though. They're not censoring themselves, they're censoring their users. And they're enforcing the censorship of another government rather than not do business there.

Sure, LifeInvader should operate within the laws of nations where they do business. But if those laws compromise your principles, you shouldn't do business there. That has nothing to do with American arrogance. I wouldn't do business in North Korea if I had to contribute to the oppression of their people. That won't be on me.

Zuck expressed the right principle. "We believe in free speech." If Turkish law says "no Muhammed pics" then let them hunt down people who post them. Sucks, but you don't have to help them. If the Turks ban FB because they won't do their dirty censorship work for them...so be it. That would be the principled stance.

It would send a message to Turks that their culture is fucked up. Lots of people would be upset about no longer having access to FaceBook, and a conversation might break out amongst Turks about the nature of their government's limits on expression. This instead just supports the status quo.

I'm coming at that from my American, free-speech-at-nearly-any-cost point of view. Turks may not care about freedom of expression, and that's their prerogative. But my sentiment echoes what Zuck said (not what he did). For my part, I would not go telling the Turks to change. But I absolutely would not help them censor, either. I would keep my network neutral. Common carrier. You can post whatever you want. If your local authorities want to persecute you for it, that's on them (and your culture). But I'm not going to help them oppress you.

There isn't much of another option. The third party candidate in my last governor's race wanted our state to issue its own currency backed by gold.

So I've got team red, team blue, and team crazy. For whom do you suggest I vote?

Would never work. They would just pass a resolution continuing all current laws for the next sunset period. Same way they do with budgets and re-issuing the blanket surveillance warrants every 90 days.

What we need are specific, limited, necessary, well-crafted laws written in the descriptive spirit of English Common Law on which our legal system was based.

Two things:

First, that's a helluva wireless plan you've got if it costs you $200 per month per person.

Second, none of the US carriers (other than T-Mobile) will cut your rate if you bring your own phone. So in that regard, the phone really does cost you $200. Honestly, the way it's structured, you're a fool to bring your own phone since you're paying a subsidy regardless.

I see your M-1 Tank and raise you asymmetrical warfare.

The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end...

No joke, the US Army has plans for "if we have to invade Canada."

I'm eagerly awaiting the inclusion of WebKit in systemd.

Which is why I use a Nexus phone. It's the reference hardware. Even if you have the AT&T branded Nexus 6, it's unlockable and rootable, while on contract. I don't understand the point of buying a non-Google Android device.

I've looked at them, and I just never saw anything that made me think "that's clearly so much better and cheaper than the Google device that I should be reliant on the manufacturer and carrier to support it."

And testing for Android app development is a nightmare. "My new app works great in the emulator built into Android Studio! So I'm sure that means it'll work perfectly on 200 different devices all running different versions of customized OSes!"

So you're saying that The Man got wise to the tinfoil loophole, had it pulled from shelves, and replaced it with aluminum foil, and for those who didn't notice the difference their source of protection now makes them more susceptible to attack! The Man is truly diabolical.

And there's no "grown-up" alternative. Back in the day you didn't run Windows 95 - ME at the office. You used NT.

If they'd made a vanilla, office-friendly version of Windows 8 called "Windows 8 NT" or whatever else, that kept the same interface as 7, they might convince some corporate IT departments to upgrade. But when you've got a staff of 10,000 plus, and you're looking at rolling out a new OS with a completely different interface, at the minimum you're taking a huge productivity hit while people figure this new thing out, and at worst you're springing for new training.

I can only imagine how many billions of dollars in productivity were lost when they switched to the Ribbon in Office. It's as if millions of voices suddenly cried out "where's the edit menu?" and were suddenly confused...