And the sort of folks seeking to demagogue by demonizing a miracle anti-parasite drug that turns out to also work in animals as a horse pill have come out of the woodwork, seeking to virtue signal superiority while appearing as dumb as those advocating a medication in the absence of a double blind trial supporting it.

Bank account? You said there was a pandemic and we should wear masks. But you said it in Jan 2020 when the WHO said no pathogen and the CDC said no masks. Being correct is no defense for thoughtcrime against the state's narrative. Your equisfacts social compliance score is flagged undesireable.

For example: If you know the number of cars parking at retail establishments, you can estimate quarterly earnings before earnings reports and make bank trading options. 'Insider' trading but legal, so selling the data is profitable. (note how big the cell phone companies got when location data became good enough to identify the retail establishment - and 'anonymized' data works fine for this - it does put your 401k investments at a huge disadvantage though, you're not in the club you see)

Much like Google working to end cookie tracking in favor of internal to Chrome tracking advertisers will have to pay for, Apple too doesn't want others monetizing their ecosystem in ways Apple would like to retain for themselves - especially if that 3rd party is damaging perceived goodwill. Regardless of actual tracking, FB stalker behavior facilitated by an IOS provided tracking ID isn't a good PR look for Apple. The fact that addressing it 'just happens' to leave Apple itself as the premiere vehicle for targeting iPhone users is, just as with Google and Chrome, a happy coincidence I'm $ure.

Presumably they're also selling the data for 'other than ads' purposes. Are you employable based on your web browsing as tracked by FB 'like' button stalking. What about insurance rates? Have you posted anything risky or visited a website an insurance company wouldn't like? (health/car/home) Political campaigns would like to track your posts relating to current political events and profile you. Are they selling to aggregators for other stuff too? Loans, school admission? Domestic spying (it's illegal, but not if we pay a private company - then it's laundered clean!)

No. Just no. If nothing else, range is a thing. 50 ft sailing yachts can beat similar displacement motor yachts on long passages simply because the motor yacht can only run at 1/4 throttle and still have enough fuel to make it (gas mileage drops FAST when you near 'hull speed'). Then too, sails stabilize vessel motion making it more comfortable and (can be) quiet. I'd imagine this yacht will travel using both motor and sail, but vacation mostly with sail.

Ship builder decided was cheaper to pay for the bridge center section removal/replacement than to make removable. That means there is a technical reason not to. This should probably be: Local luxury yacht builder successful in winning contracts for highest end vessel construction, keeping this business success story local causing inconvenience with local historic bridge. Local community prefers keeping historic bridge to replacement, prefers keeping yacht builder local...

How about a smaller start:
If a website uses an ad network or themselves serve malware they are responsible for damages and cannot disclaim them via user 'agreement' BS. If the website using technological means to enforce ad delivery, at punitive damages are added. If the website uses DNS spoofing or other means to make 3rd party content appear to be first party (to evade 3rd party cookie blocking, for example), then the website and executives personally are deemed to be equal co-conspirators (aka no 'the company did it but no actual person is responsible' BS). Blue collar crime is treated exactly like that, so should billionaire fostered crime.

AKA - first time it's been so significant they'd risk regulatory action as a public company if they lie about it. Anyone believe they haven't had mass drop offs in user engagement before now?

Why are you confusing censorship with gov't action?
'These views can't be expressed' is censorship.
The rest is gas lighting with a claim that coercing someone else to censor isn't censoring, somehow.
The real discussion to have is, should Spotify allow vendors (entertainers selling their wares) to coerce censorship of other vendors? If they allow it once, does that invite continuous outrage mobs? How should the misinformation about what was actually said factor in? (if the mob is outraged and demands canceling over something that wasn't actually said, what then?) If the outrage is partly feigned and is partly political tribalism, what then. Spotify needs to figure out where they want to be, as this is going to be done again if there is any traction.

Pfizer, Moderna and J&J don't say their vaccines are safe and effective either, because they can't lawfully. If they did, they'd be buried under lawsuits.

Monoclonal - the reports I read said it was pulled for Omnicron, apparently because it's expensive and not needed. Not because it wasn't working or there was a problem. I did see sensationalizing reporting that left off the 'for this milder variant' bit.

Between that, and lying about what was said on Rogan's show... I'm going to have to be against outrage mob censorship.

If you have to censor one of the early developers of mRNA tech, and lie about what he said anyhow (so much easier if nobody can hear it from him, isn't it?), then I may not agree with that guy at all but I'm against the big tech Orwellian censors and the Mao Mao-ing outrage mob justice scumbags.

This should be the #1 comment on the topic!
All of the 'complexities' surrounding this topic are groups seeking to conceal that they're doing it anyway as they've found a way to personally profit.

tyranny is for governments and religious organizations
No. Just no. Wrong in every respect.
Just in the US, private company tyranny sparked revolts repeatedly.
Homestead strike; Pullman strike; Ludlow Massacre; Colorado Coalfield war; Battle of Blair mountain
Company towns in general
That's before you get to things like the California Genocide, where settler companies enslaved ~25k native americans and eventually killed half of those.
Take a look at the British East India company and how they 'helped' peoples around the world.
Corporate oligarchs have quite the history of tyranny.

Masks work - banned for contradicting the CDC saying they don't, healthcare workers threatened with immediate termination if they wear a mask around CV positive patients (source - happened to my ICU nurse GF)
Masks don't work - banned for contradicting the CDC (also - masks don't work from CDC to 'preserve PPE for healthcare workers' - yeah, no... medical facilities that had a duty to maintain a stockpile of PPE 'outsourced' that to 3rd parties with no PPE and those Wallstreet orgs might have faced liability if not for the release from liability the CDC gave them)
Transitional period - banned for making either statement for contradicting either CDC assertion

Making speeches about Tienanmen Square and Uighur genocide would be a nice start, not to mention Tibet.
In fact Remember the Tienanmen Square massacre might be a nice team jersey slogan.