Oh wait... Are you saying that the person doing the search is responsible for the output? That's interesting. So no longer Copyright Google... Copyright whomever entered the search and generated the answer.

Why should section 230 protect Google or others when their AIs do bad things? action 230 was meant to be an extension of the principle that the printing press is not responsible for the content, but the creator of the content is. With AI the owner of the computer should be responsible for allowing it to be published. Otherwise, how do we get accountability?

A lot of people seem ok profiting off of deals with the CCP.

Many are so fixated on money as power and the means to convey value that they fail to see the manipulation.

China is using old colonial tactics against the US and Europe. Trade as a means of political control.

When you work in China the supply chain is under the control of the CCP. Who knows what components are being swapped out to spy on foreign militaries and their families.

Apple controls the hardware and software design. But China actually controls the hardware.

Coming from a company that embeds telemetry and data collection into its products, enabled by default, and makes it difficult amd/or time consuming to completely disable...

... oh, and there's something in a jar...

s/should/shouldn't/g

If it's too hard to list them all on my bill, then I should be paying them. Problem solved.

Everybody has a standards problem.

As long as the relavent standards (especially JavaScript and its ilk) change more often than is practical for anybody but the largest 2-3 browser developers to cope and keep up with, and as long as the browser big-boys (we know who they are) continue their "my way or the highway" meddling by adding non-standards-based features that then most websites end up catering to due to market share (or by implenting standards in workarounds-needed ways), these issues will continue to plauge the web.

I feel like maybe there was a time as IE's dominance waned where things looked like they might be getting slightly better, but it's since gotten worse. I can stack up a half-dozen of the "most popular" browsers side by side and load a complicated website, and get presentations that are none exactly alike. This is not good.

Of course, I'm generally cranky these days by the smart-device environment that encourages the dissolution of the distinction between protocol and presentation, combining both within an (shutter) "app" that exchanges data in a proprietary way. But that's another rant for another day.

I suppose the best that one could do right now is to determine, for themselves and their use case, which is the least of all evils, and if they're technically able and inclined, pick a browser project to support technically, or if not but still willing, contribute funding to same.

Or, if you happen to have enough clout, kick Google in the balls for being evil, and kick Mozilla in the ass for being stupid, and get the both of 'em to change...

Yeah, so? That's exactly what happens on your real desktop/workspace, the paradigm upon which the last 50 years of graphical computing desktop window managment has been based.

"Most of the time you donâ(TM)t care about exact window sizes and positions and just want to see the windows that you need for your current task. Often thatâ(TM)s just a single, maximized window. Sometimes itâ(TM)s two or three windows next to each other. Itâ(TM)s incredibly rare that you need a dozen different overlapping windows. Yet this is what you end up with by default today, when you simply use the computer, opening apps as you need them. Messy is the default, and itâ(TM)s up to you to clean it up."

Yes... it's up to me. And no... if all I want to see is the one window I am (or need to be) paying attention to at the moment, I maximize it. I don't care what's underneath it, just like I don't care what's on my real desktop that's underneath (or off to the side) of the thing I'm working on. And if what I'm working on changes, because I decide it should or because someone/something else decides it should, I rearrange... put the new window or piece of paper on top of everything else and focus on it. Real world, virtual world... same thing.

"Automatically do what people probably want, allow adjusting if needed"

Until they invent computers that can actually read my mind... how the hell is it supposed to automatically know? And, oh, by the way... doesn't that describe the current desktop windowing environment? Operating on a small set of both fixed (and adjustable) prefixes, with the ability for the user to (in most cases) arrange and resize the windows to suit their needs and desires?

Porting the physical desktop environment into the graphical computing environment is an example of a killer application (remember those?). What is being described in the linked Gnome discussion is, in my opinion, not. Not, at least, until they produce a demo and before it is forced into the next version of Gnome as "the default", > 90% of the computer-using population opine that this is the greatest thing they've ever seen since sliced bread.

OP's original quote: The government isn't supposed to know where we travel especially within our own borders

OK, then. Assuming that the federal government (assuming this is what the OP meant) doesn't stop me from travelling within the US, they just know where I'm going, what right of mine does that infringe upon?

I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely asking. For the sake of discourse.

The government isn't supposed to know where we travel especially within our own borders.

Can you cite either legislative or judicial law which supports this?

I appear to have been partially quoted, thus leading to a diminuation of context. Care to try again without the cherry-picking?

I did not argue that TSA is (or should be) the ones to be vigilant. Quite the opposite. Every person subject to their actions are the ones who should be vigilant.