To say that a person's work is worth X when they live in one area and less in another is pure horse feces. What Google is really revealing, and Facebook too since they have also been toying with this notion to, do not really give a crap about their workers.

Good thing there are other companies who will snatch up these people.

So much for "Don't be evil"

By flooding their app store with malware-ladden free apps?

You just described capitalism in general. "Fuck you, where's my money!"

What is clear the FDA apparently does not know the law, know its own precedents, or keep good records when it comes to NAC.

Let's take a look at that 1963 drug. The Council for Responsible Nutrition obtained the record on that drug via a Freedom of Information Act request. The date was handwritten. No one knows why is was handwritten, when it was written, or who wrote it. Therefore its authenticity is highly suspect. Even more so since the FDA would raise the same concerns if a supplement company submitted such a document claiming that an ingredient was available as a dietary supplement prior to a drug. Further casting doubt on it, is the fact that the only other record CRN was able to find about NAC prior to the July 202 letters the FDA sent out stated they "first approved N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) as a new drug in 1985." That's 22 years later. Further confounding that, the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Evaluations, aka "the Orange Book", does not contain any drug with NAC listed as the active ingredient with an approval date in 1985.

Getting back to that 1963 drug, assuming the document mentioned above is authentic, the drug was inhaled. The FDA treats different delivery methods of the same drug as different "articles." The drug referred to in that 1963 document was inhaled, thus could not apply to any supplement since by legal definition supplements have to be "intended for ingestion". There is a drug listed with a 1982 approval date for "inhalation, oral" but was discontinued in August 1994. The question the FDA needs to answer would be if this drug could be considered the same article given the dual route of exposure. There is a clause that would allow for an exemption but the FDA would have to show that substantial clinical investigations are actually being conducted and are made public before NAC hit the market as a supplement.

The law being cited, the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act, does not contain an explicit retroactive clause. As such, it does not apply to anything on the market prior to October 25th, 1994 when the DSHEA went into effect. US Courts have upheld that laws cannot be applied retroactively without an explicit intent to do so from Congress/legislatures/etc. I know for a fact that Nutraceutical Corp has had their NAC product for sale under their Solaray label prior and they intend to keep selling it.

The big question here too is "Why now?" There have been hundreds of NAC products put on the market, and the FDA has received New Dietary Ingredient Notifications for them. They had multiple chances to object and yet they let those products go to market anyways.

On June 1st, CRN submitted a Citizen Petition requesting the FDA reverse course.

No. That was part of it. But they are going after NAC as a supplement. Several companies have discontinued theirs and Amazon has confirmed they are removing all listings of it, even if it was never advertised inappropriately.

Been seeing things on Reddit and getting calls at work about N-Acetyl Cysteine supplements being "banned" by the FDA. The FDA *is* being shady about it too even though some companies would be exempt anyways. But NAC has shown some benefits in treating COVID-19.

I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust Facebook. *cough*CambridgeAnalytica*cough*

They declare bankruptcy and get the debt discharged.

Why? The Republicans are the authoritarians who suck up to dictators.

It's one thing to ban future sales. It's another thing altogether to force your residents to buy hundreds/thousands of dollars in new equipment. Not to mention the environmental impact of all that equipment getting junked at once.

And the irony is Microsoft doesn't really even do their own browser anymore. Google writes it for them.

Not to mention said content contained threats to commit acts of terrorism against Amazon itself.

But how does Apple have a monopoly?

Do they have the only smartphone available? No. Google, Samsung, LG, and a whole host of others make smartphones too.
Are they the makers of the only Smartphone OS? No. Android exists.
Do they control a vast majority of the market? No.
Do they even have a small majority of the market? No. Counterpoint has them, as of Q32020, at 40% of the market. Samsung is next with 30%. LG then with 13%. Combine those tow makers control more market share with Android phones than Apple.

Apple can only control what goes onto the phones they themselves make. Samsung controls what I can put on my Smart TV that they make. Is that a monopoly? This is nothing new. It is also something the buyer goes into the sale with full knowledge of. If they do not like it, Android awaits them.

Why not? I mean there's such a war against having to bake cakes for gay weddings. So honestly, this type of "censorship" (which is it not censorship), is okay in the world view of the audience being affected.

Except Epic v Apple doesn't apply to terrorist content.