And it does not "ban" any people, innocent or otherwise. It bans anonymous edits from an IP. That isn't a person. That is just one of the many ways of making edits. It certainly isn't a "ban" as they still get "use" of Wikipedia, reading and otherwise. They just can't edit, anonymously, from that IP. Edit anonymously from home, or get a login. It's not a hardship to anyone.

Just because you advertise it as being something doesn't mean it is or needs to be? Nope. That's false advertising.

Nope. The corporate owners can take their corporate profits and have speech. The question was about the corporation having its own voice, above and beyond that of the employees of it (with tax implications of using pre-tax money for post-tax activities).

Trumped by buyer beware.

Keyboard phones sound good on paper but when people actually tried them the reality hit home.

Yes, and the reality is that if you are someone who works with text -- a programmer, a sysadmin, a writer -- a keyboard phone completely fscking rocks, putting a remote terminal/text editor device in your pocket. I can sit at the bar and work on an essay, or ssh in to the server at work for a quick bug fix or server restart. (Yes, it's nice to have a tablet or laptop or desktop but those don't fit into my pocket.) "Swipe" keyboards are useless. You can have my Epic 4G when you pry it from my cold dead hands...or replace it with another phone with a hardware keyboard. There is no substitute.

These sort of things are legal now. Corporations are people, and people have free speech, and spending money is speech.

There is 2GB of memory for the OS, personal settings, apps, etc. If you can not boot the device, you can not access this memory to clear it. You may be SOL.

So the marketing for something is allowed to directly contradict the contract? That sounds like false advertising.

Yes, because there is no blame going to the vendor for not delivering to the contract. Blame the government, no matter where the failure is. Never blame the private sector, even when you see failure to deliver. Hypocrisy.

If you can see it from public property and tell what it is, it's (effectively) in the public domain, isn't it?

It may be practically difficult to prevent that information from getting out to people who want it, but that doesn't make it legal to do so. Plenty of governments continue to try keeping stuff secret even when there's no real hope of doing so.

Internet folklore from the days of Usenet had stories of Intels R&D divisions using LSD to creatively solve problems. It was never talked about, except when the compulsory workplace drug testers came to find their walkway blocked by higher powers when entering the R&D division.

Google has removed references from its search results.

No, you ban no "innocent" people. You ban an IP. The IP isn't the person, remember? They can edit from home, or get a login and keep editing all they want. The IP offended, so the IP is banned.

No innocent IP was harmed in the making of this message.

Yes, they do. At a minimum, it's false advertising.

Russia is definitely, without a doubt or a question, the villain here.

Your statement assumes there is only one villain.

Russia is a villain. The U.S. is a villain. The current fascist-riddled Ukraine government is a villain. The prior authoritarian Ukraine government is a villain. And in the end, the ethnic Russians of Eastern Ukraine are fucked.

Calling it "unlimited" isn't fraud. Calling it "unlimited" while imposing artificial limits is fraud.