Unfortunately, Amazon's Sidewalk is more of a threat than this statement implies. Sidewalk is a new wireless internetwork. This gives Amazon the ability to sell network access to other companies. For example, Samsung could license access to Sidewalk for use in a zero-configuration smart TV. This is likely to happen because there are obvious benefits for Samsung and Samsung's customers. Yet, the threats to privacy and security are non-obvious so it is likely consumers will not react.

If such licensing deals become commonplace then so long as a neighbor (or property manager) has a Sidewalk device smart appliances will be able to communicate with their parent companies (and, likely, Amazon as well) without the knowledge or consent of most consumers. Since most smart appliances will soon have microphones (and, eventually, cameras) this means purchasing any modern appliance for your home will threaten your privacy and security.

Arguably, this is not a new threat. It has also been possible for companies to embed a cellular network in a smart appliance to achieve the same effect. The difference between this and Sidewalk is in the details. Cellular networks are a product of the telecommunications industry which has a long history of regulated consumer privacy rights. Whereas Amazon has a short and questionable history of consumer privacy and security. In my opinion, Amazon's history has made it clear that they have no plans to protect consumer privacy or security and will resist any regulation.

A cautious person can carefully research every smart appliance to ensure that it is not Sidewalk enabled. But this puts a burden on society that requires a level of consumer sophistication that does not currently exist. We cannot expect every person to be a network security expert. We saw this happen with Wi-Fi routers which originally shipped with default passwords. Today, we have learned it is necessary to set a unique password at the factory. Given this history there is no reason to expect consumers to understand the details of Sidewalk and the internetwork threats to which they are being exposed. It would be better to regulate internetworks to ensure a minimum level of privacy and security is achieved.

Some people are irrational. Some people make poor decisions. Some people make mistakes. Some people are nefarious. Some people don't care about the future. Even rational people can appear to act irrationally if they have hidden incentives. You are offering a predictive model which defies common sense and likely has no predictive power. This is reckless.

thegarbz, you are offering ill-founded advice which can put lives in jeopardy. Hospitals have been targets of hackers. If a hospital were to follow your advice and patients died I would hold you partly responsible. Do not speak carelessly when human lives are at stake. Please withdraw your statement.

If we were to accept the proposition that domestic terrorism is a euphemism for the political opposition then it would be impossible for any organization to investigate domestic terrorism. This would cripple our ability to maintain public order. Consequently, this notion must be rejected.

Public order is essential so we need to allow the government to investigate domestic terrorism. This means we need to give them the tools to do that. We can prevent abuses of power by encumbering the tools with limits. The methods needed to prevent abuse of power are well known: archival documentation, warrants approved by a non-partisan judge, whistle-blower protections, and bipartisan congressional oversight.

When we know how to investigate domestic terrorism and we know how to investigate safely then saying we should not do so is supporting domestic terrorism by shielding it from investigation.

Investigation is crucial today because white supremacy domestic terrorists attacked the Capitol on January 6. Unfortunately, the GOP socializes with domestic terrorists, endorses terrorists and funds terrorists. This puts us in a position where we have no choice but to investigate the GOP for crimes. We want to protect politicians from politically-motivated investigation but protection cannot be extended to politicians who engage in criminal behaviour. We must not allow a political party to use their power to shield criminals from investigation otherwise our government will be overrun by criminals (which is already happening) and public order will disintegrate (as we saw on January 6). The cause and effect are clear and the consequences obvious.

Investigation is also crucial regarding the BLM protests. As always, we must investigate the root cause. Whereas the root cause of the Capitol attack was terrorists and the GOP trying to stop certification of election results the root cause of the BLM protests was not terrorists. The cause was world-wide outrage over racially-motivated murders of American citizens by American police officers. The root cause is obvious. We can and should investigate police organizations across America with oversight to ensure results are correct and not politically-motivated.

Inaction can be just as much a failure as inappropriate action. For example, inaction regarding pollution takes prosperity away from younger citizens while enriching the prosperity of older citizens. This goes against the core principle of fairness and younger citizens harmed by pollution can hold government responsible because it is a duty of government to provide of all citizens equally.

The environment is part of the public trust and government must protect it. Democracy is more than simply enacting the action which would be taken by a majority of citizens. A crucial difference between government and private citizens is that a private citizen is allowed to put personal gain above the public trust. Consequently, it is often the case that a majority of private citizens may desire or demand actions which are fundamentally incompatible with ethical governance.

Your claims are false.

Warrants provide a level of protection regardless of what fraction are approved.

The approval rate considers only warrants which are written and filed. During the writing process the author has a chance for self-criticism. They may find, themselves, that the warrant is meritless and abandon the warrant.

Few people work alone. Most written warrants will be reviewed by others before it is filed. A careful organization will make this mandatory. This affords a second opportunity for critical review by peers. The additional review stops bad warrants from being filed.

Furthermore, a filed warrant can be challenged in court or reviewed by a third party. This offers an after-the-fact chance for review and an opportunity to rebuke those who file bad warrants.

The real world is not ideal but we have the power to change laws and processes. We are not helpless. If warrants are not as valuable as they could be then we can change our laws and strengthen enforcement to make warrants more valuable.

Warrants provide essential protections for citizens against totalitarianism, authoritarianism and fascism. Falsely claiming warrants provide no protection is a strategy someone would use to abolish warrants and unabashed pessimism is a strategy someone would use to undermine political activism. Frankly, your post is indistinguishable from an attack on warrants and rule of law and fosters ideological support for replacing democracy with tyranny.

The phone company facilitates a private connection between two parties. Society has decided that phone companies are not responsible for policing private conversations. In fact, we prefer they do not listen at all. A court order is needed to record a phone conversation (although, that requirement has been greatly weakened).

Twitter and Reddit empower a speaker to speak to more people than the speaker could with natural voice alone and to reach people outside the speaker's social circle. This amplifies a speaker's participation in public discourse. Amplification of individuals requires discretion otherwise a small number of bad actors can overrun a larger community.

Amplification is the key difference between web forums and phone conversations. Public discourse is a limited space where only the loudest voices are heard. Amplifying some voices also means diminishing other voices. A decision to amplify a message by publishing it on a web forum is also a decision to reduce other messages. The two actions cannot be separated.

Twitter and Reddit are responsible for their actions which impact public discourse. Consequently, they should be sued in cases where their self-regulation fails to prevent harm to society. However, the proposed Florida law is senseless. In some cases, politicians can be harmful to society. A law which forces amplification of harmful voices is a harmful law. Those who proposed this law are reckless.

Your conclusion is incorrect. The message of Dumbo is not a great message for children.

There are many kinds of children. You claim the message of Dumbo is good for children but I do not see how this would be true for black children (and others besides). In fact, your entire argument is nonsense unless you intended it to be read only by white people and for its conclusion to apply only to white people. I'm sorry to tell, but your post is racist. Based on your writing I guess that you will be surprised to be told your post is racist so I will explain why in detail.

Here is your concluding remark, "Sure the crows may look different from you but they are not to be feared, disliked, or rejected for that you should give them a chance and get to know them for who they actually are; they just might be the best friends you'll ever make." This statement is tied to a fundamentally racist viewpoint.

Why would you say the crows look different from the viewer? Not all viewers are white skinned. Some viewers have dark skin and may find themselves as being grouped with the crows. We can already see evidence that your conclusion is narrow minded and excludes non-white children from consideration. I hope you can see how this is fundamentally racist.

As you say the crows are not to be feared, disliked or rejected you propose there is instructional value in Dumbo. Of course, anyone grouped with the crows would have no reason to fear, dislike or reject the crows. Only those different from the crows---white people---would gain any benefit from such instruction. Again, we find evidence that your conclusion is meaningful only for white people and non-white people are excluded from consideration.

You know the world is not made up of only white people. If you want to analyze movies from the narrow perspective of white people and draw conclusions which are only valid for white people then at least make it clear that your conclusions have such limited scope.

Domestic terrorists are using Parler to organize and recruit for a second attack on our nation.

We do not want to censor people, as per the 1st amendment. We also have a duty to not render aid to traitors lest we become traitors ourselves. In this case, we cannot have both. We must pick one.

Amazon made a choice to shut down the communications system of the enemy. It is the right choice.

Of course they must distance themselves from Trump. This is about treason.

On January 6 Trump tried to violently overthrow the government. He has become an enemy of the nation. This means that anyone who provides services to Trump is complicit in treason.

Treason is providing "aid and comfort" to an enemy. Providing a platform which allows Trump to communicate with his followers is clearly treason. In fact, simply patting him on the back and saying, "Cheer up", is treason. It is unlikely you would ever be arrested for the latter, but you could certainly be arrested for the former.

If you work at a company that provides services to Trump I advise your company to end that relationship. The gray area between "we have to treat all customers equally" and "we have to not commit treason" is very narrow now. Make sure you end up on the best side of it.

You are too optimistic.

Manufacturers do keep inventory separate and hidden from inspectors. Local inspectors lie. Foreign inspectors are intentionally deceived. Officially licensed manufacturers create product that is significantly different from the agreed-upon specifications and deliver them to the official client (who then sells to consumers without realizing their products are substandard). Counter-intuitively, manufacturers are not bad actors. Rather, they are ordinary people who learned how to act in an environment where lying and cheating is necessary to prosper.

A detailed step-by-step process with each step checked and verified by an honest inspector is necessary to manufacture a consistent and safe product. Many manufacturers across the world cannot do this because of bad institutions (eg, systematic dishonesty and promise breaking). You should read Poorly Made in China by Paul Midler and Bottle of Lies by Katherine Eban.

Who added MCAS to the mix late? You know that MCAS cannot add itself to the product. Boeing made an intentional decision to add MCAS and Boeing did so recklessly by not adjusting the schedule to accommodate.

Your statement should have been, "The problem was that Boeing added MCAS to the mix late". You stated the problem without stating the responsible party as if MCAS has the ability to jump off the shelf and install itself. You have multiple posts in this discussion where you repeatedly present this illusion. You describe in detail all the mistakes Boeing has made but redirect blame from Boeing onto inanimate devices and procedures. You are actively protecting Boeing.

The way you demonstrate ideas are not welcome is by ignoring them.

We should not ignore the victims. When a conspiracy theory is presented there will invariably be victims who fall for it. It takes effort to counteract a conspiracy theory. Hours of work are needed to refute the original argument and follow-up responses. It is also emotionally exhausting.

After it is over, the same conspiracy theory (often copy-pasted) will reappear within days. There seems to be an inexhaustible supply of people willing to post conspiracy theories and victims who will fall for it. After seeing this sequence repeat over and over it starts to make sense to simply abort the sequence at the beginning. This is one kind of solution.

Ignoring conspiracy theories and leaving its victims to fend for themselves is not a solution.

I realize you meant this as a joke but it should not be.

France is just one of the many countries served by Facebook. It doesn't seem fair that only France should gather tax. One week's profit is 1.9% tax on profit. If every country served by Facebook demanded a similar tax it would add up to a heavy burden. Given that, it seems like France is asking for too much. Given that few countries ask for tax it seems that Facebook is paying too much tax to too few and paying too little tax in total.

The smartphone market has meaningful choices for consumers between iPhone and Android (et al, worldwide) in that,

1. Consumers purchase both in large proportions. This is evidence that both platforms are valued by consumers and consumers can act for self interest.

2. The differences between the choices are well known and it is understandable why some people prefer a family-friendly safety-minded choice whereas other prefer an open technological platform choice with cutting edge algorithms and sideloading. Choices that are different in ways that serve the goals of consumers is evidence that the market is working for everyone.

3. Both choices have feature parity (support all major carriers, GPS, IMU, camera, health apps, games, productivity apps, etc). This is evidence that consumers can achieve their goals with either platform.

Thus, I am not convinced that Apple has a monopoly. Nor is it clear how the App Store policies harm society.

Fortnite, although popular, is not unique. First-person shooter games exist on iPhone. I believe there will be Fortnite clones on iPhone. Game exclusives are not new and Epic will be fine if Fortnite is only available on Android. Consumers can find another game to play. If consumers are truly harmed in that they can find no alternative to Fortnite then that would be evidence that Epic has a monopoly.

In my opinion the Epic lawsuit fails the basic common sense test. And, in order for anybody to care about this lawsuit Epic needs to show something meaningful. Such as Apple prevents consumers from acting in self interest, or consumers cannot achieve their goals due to interference by Apple, or Apple prevents Google from reaching feature parity by illegal industry practices. Otherwise this lawsuit is merely about Epic whining about how Apple is a tough negotiator.