breaking up Facebook would involve them standardizing the apis their data centers, which are already "broken up"... that is distributed ... That's how it worked with Ma Bell. The "internal" standards become public standards so the parts can inter-operate.

why?

this recognizing shall not be tolerated!!!

ready the FEMA camps.

fuck off! you sound like my wife except I love my wife and she understand my box of cords, and once I found an hdmi cord I needed in there, so let me repeat, fuck off! you're mean.

those people are available remotely and from all over the world, where they have to be distributed anyway.

those grandmas just need training in conjob detection.

why else?

> I disagree. They should be entertained for one day, then use of simple evidence should be used to prove the Earth is round. This is a super clear example of how science classes should be taught. Pair it with a little history and let kids know how far back humanity knew about the globe. There's a lot more where Flat Earth came from... endless amounts, and it would take more than a day. It can be taught in sociology and mass psychosis class. As far as the monetized speech... I disagree with the current SCOTUS opinion, my right as a citizen, and there is no reason to think it's stuck that way, much more testing of the waters is bound to occur. People restricting monetized speech doesn't go against any evident ideals of the nation, if that were important when we are deciding what those ideals ought to become. Personally, it seems to me monetized speech is the biggest threat to free speech, it creates a conflict of interest.

do you have any citations showing data that unemployed urban people are the largest demographic for the democratic party?

The thing is, there is no end to the theories you could "disprove" in science to show how science works, and you are better using those that at one point had wide support, like aether or phlogiston. There isn't time in science. There are already more than One True Idea in science as it is, competing theories... there is therefore no use to discussing flat earth in science classes. Regarding monetization, I said it was a hard question... but it's not limited to us "allowing" flat earthers to monetize, as in a law or something. As an ethical question it also exists for those that own monetized platforms, or provide the money from which they are monetized... should you feel free as a private platform to refuse to monetize certain kinds of content that you might still be willing to host. That's separate from what you refuse to host, period. And it's a difficult question. There is a huge philosophical and political issue in the difference between free speech and monetized speech that I think has to be addressed.

But also, should we cure ourselves of them, then there is still nature to compare with.

flat earth theories don't need to be censored in public, but should not be entertained in science classes. perhaps the biggest question is when to allow the speech but don't allow it to monetize.

is our common "other".

god only knows who you mean by "a good number of Congress-critters"...