...why harmful lies spread easily EVERYWHERE, regardless of how heavy-handed a government's controls may be on communication.

Serious answer:
Try reading a little before asking an already answered question.

In 2015, the FCC upped the definition of "broadband" from 4 Mbps to 25 Mbps (https://broadbandnow.com/report/fcc-broadband-definition/)

In the New York Times article, statistical truth is obscured by political mission.

There's a lot of effort to add little meaningful information here. Politics, as usual.

1) Tariffs don't make American products cheaper...they make foreign products more costly (by adding taxes at import time).
2) Yes, you _can_ get all those materials (steel, paint, plastic, LEDs) in the U.S., but at least some of them are available at a substantially lower cost from other countries (e.g. steel from China).
3) The margins on almost all competitive consumer products in the U.S., including computer cases, are VERY thin no matter what kind of optimizations you try to make to the production process. That's what competitive markets do...offer consumers a variety of prices, qualities and relative values. Consumers pick their preferences, and all other things being equal (e.g. relatively similar computer cases), consumers will typically select the lower priced one.

The short term effect of increased tariffs will be increased prices for the same goods you bought cheaper before the tariffs. The political and longer term effects are more uncertain, especially when you factor in the possibility that unfair players (like China with respect to intellectual property violations and government subsidies) will also hurt in the short run, and may improve their behaviors in the longer run. But you won't find many consumers who will prefer the fairly certain near-term increase in sticker prices [dripping with understatement].

And _if_ a robot takes your job, you should seek to product through some other function that people "value" (read: "are willing to pay for"). It's not as if your need to consume will go away. So it remains important that you produce. That is, unless you have decided that it should be somebody else's problem to pay your way.

(Virtuous notions: Try to be a giver. Try not to be a taker. Never give up.)

You don't "lay off" in order to recruit "new people". In many jurisdictions, you can't do that legally.

Not that EA has ever cared about silly little things like employment laws.

Incidentally, I work for a 10,000+ employ software company, and to my knowledge and belief, they have never "laid off" anyone, ever.

I'd better tell management that consistent year on year growth - and regularly heading up the best companies to work for lists - is "abnormal" and "unhealthy". They're doing it wrong!

Because when I read "EA" and "slashing workforce" I half expected it to be about "the cubicle stabbings will continue until morale improves."

Good job that's not in the slightest bit radioactive then.

If nuclear adopted the same attitude that coal has always had, then reactor leaks would be result in a shrug and a response of "So what, you can't see it, so it can't hurt you."