What repercussions should they fear exercising constitutionally protected (not granted) activities? I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant on backwards social media platform. If they are substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office or deserve respect or the honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed the public trust in the office they hold. This USA should be a republic. There should be no aristocracy, or ruling class, but people get a little bit of perceived power and we see most of them head towards autocracy and abusive of authority while denying responsibility.
Amazon should fear social repercussions, for which the constitution does not provide protection by design. I don't believe she took Amazon's comments personally, but rather as a reflection of their public power. Your final sentence seems to be her complaint about Amazon, that they are acting more and more autocratically while denying responsibility. With regulatory capture and the ability to provide unlimited campaign finance, one could argue that we now live in a corporate oligarchy.
Amazon and its "army of lawyers and lobbyists" have zero votes.
The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to purchase the attention of senators.
Nevertheless. This will be a wake-up call for all those hipster executives that think "the cloud" is cheaper than owning datacenters. It might be, until they find out that they don't get to make decisions on what gets fixed first, since they don't own the infrastructure or manage the engineers fixing the network.
Sure, they can decide what gets fixed first much more often if they own the data center.
Most of the internet is not free and open. We're not lifting up view points which are most useful or beneficial to ourselves, instead our specific biases are being exploited by algorithm to keep our engagement up. Society is being hacked. The reason it is so difficult to prosecute this hack in the public sphere is no one wants to believe that a reasonably bright human being can be manipulated by a social media company.
In systems where the control is most effective, those being controlled are the most deluded about how much freedom we have. The internet has (so far) shifted control from those who needed to preserve a status quo and keep a stable society to those whose only interest is profit.
... the Internet is not a newspaper!
It is not a newspaper in that it can do so much more damage than a newspaper can. It is simultaneously the most successful agitation and propaganda weapon of mass destruction ever invented and the most impressive means of coordination and access ever invented. With equal powers to destroy or create and it always being faster to destroy something than to create something, we are in for a hard road if we do not learn to blunt the speed at which political stability is being shredded by social media in the majority of democratic countries.
Climate scientists may stay out of politics and economics, while climate change lacks such common decency. Someone, somewhere needs to be figuring out what is going to happen to our economic and political systems.
Implacable skepticism is not an advantageous position, all things considered.
Android might fit this definition, but Android probably shouldn't be considered "Linux", given how deep down the kernel is hidden.
Given that the kernel is the heart of the OS, it has to count. It's irrelevant what users perceive to be the truth.
Funny, I can't buy an Android tablet at the Apple Store. Sprint won't sell me a Verizon phone. Safeway wouldn't sell me a DJI drone. Target doesn't sell industrial arc welders.
And for fucks sake, don't even get me started about the argument I got into with the manager when Home Depot refused to sell me a sandwich.
I wasn't aware that Home Depot, Apple, Spring, or Safeway were all claiming to be the "Everything Store".
The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst
