Like I said, easier said than done.
What is there that compels anybody to vote for their spoon fed candidates?? Where is the gun? This is all nothing but blame passing.
Where do you get your information about candidates from? TV Channels? Newspapers? Online websites? Radio?
All forms of media are corporations that depend on varying degrees between ad revenue and subscriptions. Is it plausible that a corporation may not want to upset a candidate due to risk of ad revenue loss, either directly from the candidate's campaign or other organizations that indirectly support the candidate (see Citizens United)?
Is this not a corrupting influence of money on elections?
Tough for the prosecutors but this is a flash of some sense.
Agreed. No doubt it will make the prosecutor's job a little harder. But it's the right (principled) thing. And sometimes doing the right thing isn't the easiest option.
What is the goal here?
I think it's simply to bring some transparency and visibiity to the number and scope of secret warrants.
What is to say that court orders won't require making false statements to general public (ie. false canary)?
McMillen says that not only have the large content providers already had preferential bandwidth for ten years, but that by now this has become an inherent part of the structure of the Internet and in practice cannot be changed.
Everything is *always* in a state of change. Bad argument made by McMillen. There are many ISPs who don't have prioritized access for Google/companyx. Comcast/Verizon/ATT operate only within US, their prioritized access model does not exist the rest of the internet world.
When a journalist writes such poor quality articles you kinda do have to wonder about their motivations ($$$) as well as of their publishing company who approves it for publication.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.