Perhaps, because you prefer not to indiscriminately hand greedy corporations the power to continue screwing you? Maybe you want to have some say in your own freedom? Okay, those are really my reason--I admit that I don't understand you ...at all.

For those of us who may not have time to read all the memos, could you please provide some supporting details?

This is no small barrier. To end users, it is the difference between a phone that works, and one that is broken. Reverse-engineering proprietary blobs is a tremendous bother. Who wants to put in all that effort for a phone that will be obsolete in 3 months? Essentially, if there is even one proprietary blob, the whole thing is effectively proprietary. From a practical perspective, is only marginally more open than Windows ever was.

The free market is a noun. What were you told the free market would do? Magically ignore natural barriers to entry and resource limitations and spawn competition that will drive down prices to a fair value? Yeah, that would be a lie. Are you implying that we should give our government power to regulate this industry, and it will never use that power for evil? That would be a lie too. If you want the truth, you gotta stop making ridiculous assumptions.

I'm just not seeing that happening anytime soon, so what exactly are you saying? Progress must halt indefinitely? Or do you really think we are on the brink of the general public suddenly becoming outraged at the privacy infractions of the entites that "serve" them?

To be more specific, it is better than the system we have, which is easier to game. With the current system, everyone must trust the well-established venues. With the web of trust, everyone chooses their own trusted pointes to seed their web. This is very difficult to game unless you know your target's seed points in advance.

Everyone hates SPAM, so obviously Spamhaus is good and Cyberbunker is evil...

...except, SPAM exists because SMTP is broken, and we can't fix SMTP because of the network effect, and SMTP is not really awful enough to fix because ...wait for it ...Spamhaus. So, it is not entirely clear to me that this guy who fights for a free and open Internet is really the bad guy. Wouldn't it be better if we actually FIXED THE PROBLEM instead of suppressing anonymity to compensate?

No pancake is so thin that it has only one side.

Right. People enjoy what they're good at. He's going for a Ph.D. Those are the kind of people that are good at making an impact. If we were good at "enjoying life", we would have pursued the path of greatest pleasure instead of the path of greatest impact. If he's not happier grinding, he's on the wrong path.

Nope. No method exists that accurately captures the desire of the entire population. Plurality voting is especially biased by the choices, whether done with electoral colleges, popularity, or any other system of tallying.

By that logic, the owner of every router through which the data passed is responsible for the activities of the end users. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect intent may actually be relevant sometimes.

Mod parent up. Visa has a near monopoly in taking a cut of all transactions, and you want us to get upset at all the retailers who don't want to submit cheerfully? Think about what you're trying to do for a second. As long as the Visa tax is hidden, no one can ever try to do it for less. Customers will always choose the bigger more-convenient card that works everywhere.

Arguments about the second amendment used to revolve around whether guns keep us free. These days, however, they're all about whether guns keep us safe. Something significant has already been lost, even if we still have the right to bear arms.

Very reasonable, if your employer is a CA. Not at all reasonable if your employer sells hubcaps. Need more info.

Educate employees. (But your next question shows that you already know this.)

Yes. Employees are not algorithms. That's why we employ them instead of just computers.

Yes, if you want effective employees, you should allow them to use their brains, as well as extensions that make them more effective.

Do you have any questions that lack obvious answers--perhaps something worth discussing in a forum?

Why do you suppose there is only one way, and what makes you think that one is the most effective? How about acknowledge the points your opponent has right so the debate becomes about the remainder that your opponent cannot defend? All this screaming at each other with neither side listening is why it is taking so darn long. This debate should have been over a century ago.