The reason the money is there is that there's so much for power for it to buy. I appreciate Lessig's work in general, but those who think that campaign finance measures will ever be anything more than an endless game of whack-a-mole are kidding themselves. (And even then that's without factoring in SCOTUS hostility toward the idea.)

Money is a symptom, not the disease. There's so much money precisely because there's so much federal power available to buy. Until political power is radically decentralized, this will not change.

It's her stripper name.

If you think that free markets and deregulation are pro-corporate policies, you're not paying enough attention. The whole point of corporatism is to use "consumer protection" as an excuse to prevent new entrants into the marketplace.

Now now, not your users' data, just their metadata. That's just fine, I know because the Surpeme Court says so. ~

Because they're not a "they", they're a huge set of individuals who differ from one another, in many cases by a great deal. If you're not keen to help those who want to resist their oppressors then that's your call, but many of us do.

I know what you mean, but I decided to let it go when I remembered that even in TOS Spock shows emotion at unexpectedly seeing Kirk alive at the end of Amok Time.

Or have they not made it that far yet?

In corporatist America, politicians bugger you.

Not at all. I'm simply disagreeing that the government is the most reliable institution to provide that sort of information. For example, Certified Humane has a special seal of approval that is meant to help consumers who eat things like eggs and meat make the choice to only buy from providers who treat the animals involved in a reasonably humane fashion. One could argue government could mandate this, but given the influence of agribusiness on politicians and bureaucrats, that solution is not realistic. Fortunately, we see that this private labelling system can do the same job to provide information to those who want it.

Now, you evidently disagree that non-profit groups are ideal for this, and if that's the case, well, we're each entitled to our own observations. But come on, does that really mean that either of us are doing mental gymnastics, making unreasonable justifications, moving goalposts, or violating core principles (routinely or otherwise)?

That's not because we intrinsically hate labels that help people make informed decisions about what they eat. It's because (1) we think if consumers who don't want to eat GMOs are serious, they'll refuse to buy food unless there's a seal of approval from a trustworthy private organization that has real standards, and (2) when a government that's in Monsanto's pocket inevitably comes up with a shitty labeling system it will crowd out the possibility of such private organizations developing because people will falsely believe it's a solved problem.

It's fair enough if you disagree, but don't assume bad faith.

Troll? Troll?!

[robot voice] "I am a moderator. I am hypersentitive and humorless...." [/robot voice]

So, what you're saying is "Grammatik macht frei"?

Both of you are doofi.

+1, Disagree but Clever