In the case of Twitter, the only improvement that's happened here is that anyone with a decent browser can access it.
Maybe the cause of your surprise is that you're trivializing things that are actually quite important.
By making Twitter accessible via a web site, the effort required to follow a feed went from (minor, and slightly technical) to (nada). With something like Twitter, which is of only marginal value to most people, I'm guessing that using it needs to have just about zero degree of inconvenience, or else people just won't bother.
If people have such a low desire for something that they will only go for it when all (or nearly all) inconvenience is removed, that potentially tells me two things: 1) the people are lazy or unmotivated so when they say they want something, they do NOT mean they are willing to endure a small amount of effort or inconvenience to obtain it, and 2) Twitter's services were never very valuable to anyone or else near-zero inconvenience would not have been necessary for its explosive growth.
Either 1) is true, or 2) is true, or both of them are true. In all cases, that would mean I am recognizing that this is inherently trivial and would not mean that I am trivializing something that is inherently important.
What you are dealing with in the general public are flighty, fickle persons of the moment. They do not decide for themselves what they want. When they say they want something, they do not mean they are willing to take any and all actions which do not violate their legal/moral/ethical codes in order to obtain it. Instead, they wait for the next biggest thing to appear on the marketing stage and they jump on that bandwagon until the next biggest thing after that shows up. There is no lasting or enduring value for them, nor are there concepts like acting out of principle. Twitter has had some success because it has recognized this as its environment and has tried to adapt to that environment. That is a form of pandering and while I recognize the business case for it, it's also responsible for many of the reasons why I won't use their site and most of the other trendy sites. They are aiming themselves towards a demographic that does not include me.
Where the following line was stated:
'Replace "Google Voice" with "IE" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows".'
this should have read,
'Replace "Google Voice" with "Firefox" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows".'
Dyslexia because of thinking too fast.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your email communication.
I think you don't understand the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy". It's not a technical idea meaning "this data is secure". It's a social/legal idea, meaning "third parties are supposed to know that this data is private, and so they should keep out of it even if they are technically able to look".
By that measure, you certainly do have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for your email. For example, if your ISP started posting your emails to a public web page, you would have grounds for a lawsuit. Therefore, you can "reasonably expect" that your ISP won't do that.
It's already possible to bring in such people, they are known as "expert witnesses". The issue here is more the lack of a prompt trial. Maybe what's needed is a rule along the lines that someone is automatically found "not guilty" if their trial does not start within a certain time of their being charged.
A race is where people see it and racial divisions are certainly not a universal concept. Closer to a social construct if you ask me.
So we need to accept all of that "it means whatever you think it means" bullshit, merely because words like "race" and "ethnicity" and "nationality" and "religion" and the differences among them are too hard? Really?? How about we instead decide that if someone doesn't have a working understanding of what those terms mean, then perhaps that person is not qualified to speak about them. That's so much better than lowering the standards and this is one area that has a particularly low signal-to-noise ratio.
and tavern "music" in the original
What is this TAVERN you speak of? Have you been watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Star Wars didn't have TAVERNS. It had CANTINAS.
Good god man, please take off your nerd badge, leave your pass at reception and go take a few crash courses to improve yourself back to a respectable nerd level.