You read too much into it hoping it wasn't exactly what it looked like.

PR person makes racist joke on social media? That isn't job job ending. That is a career ending move.

Does your day job provides you with enough money to pay for the servers and bandwidth needed by a service like SnapChat? That is the infrastructure to handle about 4,500+ "snaps" a second. Oh, and don't forget the 30 employees SnapChat employs. Assuming they earn $50,000.00 per year, that is $1.5 million in salary per year.

I am sure that your day job is paying you the $2 million or so need to keep SnapChat or a similarly sized service running.

I am sure that "[n]ot everything [you] do is for profit" but your job is one of those things you do for profit. For Spiegel, SnapChat is his job, so he is doing it for profit. SnapChat's employees are working as their day job. They want the company to turn a profit so the keep getting paid, just as you want whatever company you work for to turn a profit so you continue to get paid because you still have a day job.

So, you are suggesting they should act like Enron, Madoff, and all the other financial ripoff artists. Interesting morals you have there.

By "evil company", do you mean a company that charges for it's service or sells eyeballs? If so, how is that "nice company" supposed to pay it's bills?

So, the end-user ends up with two choices

1. pay for SnapChat, where all there contacts currently on.
2. move to one or more of the new free services and hope you choose well and they don't go bust

Those new free services will still have a revenue problem. And, if one is better capitalized, then it may buy up it's rivals and have an even bigger revenue problem.

Everyone needs to eat. Servers need power. It costs money to run servers, pay for bandwidth, pay for facilities, and have employees. If a company has no revenue then it is going to fail eventually.

Please tell me how you manage to have internet access and servers without paying for them.

That is a false statement, also know as a flat out lie. The article doesn't claim that the whole program hasn't work, rahter the article in question stated that "Program A didn't do B" when "Program A was never designed to do B". Perhaps you should stick with the facts.

The collection of metadata wasn't supposed to stop attacks. It was supposed to help identify possible terrorists That would allow applying for further surveillance to stop any attack and help identify other terrorists who helped with an attack, especially a suicide attack.

One of those mountain sized diamonds from The Core.

Yes, science fiction novels are a great source of political theory and quoting them definitely bolsters your point. Nothing better than that~

Perhaps you should tell that to the inventors of Bitcoin.

How about reading their their FAQ where it specifically says Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency? You might learn something.

Granted, I'm a boxing fan so I don't claim to be objective but it's insanity that someone can have a history of making false rape allegations and the judge doesn't allow the jury to consider that.

LK

I have attended one college and one university since Wikipedia was created and it's not permitted as a source *at all*. You, clearly may use it to find actual sources but it shouldn't even appear in your bibliography or sources.

LK