What Trump is doing is forcing technology companies to make a choice. They can't claim to be neutral platforms while editing and censoring some content while promoting other content to push their agenda. They must therefore make a choice. They can become genuinely neutral platforms where all views are allowed, or they can continue to edit content and give up their Section 230 privileges.

Either choice is fine, and I have no problems if YouTube wishes to give up its Section 230 protections and announce that it's a left wing site for left wing content. What is not acceptable is that they continue to censor conservative views while claiming to be neutral. YouTube's actions are equivalent to the postal service opening every letter, reading the contents, and deciding whether it should be permitted to be sent. Clearly, if the post office acted in such a manner it would not be just a carrier, but an editor, and should lose all privileges as a neutral platform. The same goes for technology companies; if they wish to censor and edit content they are free to do so, but they will must lose their Section 230 protections as a result.

They can't have it both ways, so the time has come to chose - become a neutral platform or lose Section 230 protections.

Remote work mixes your personal and work life in a way many people find undesirable. I like to keep my personal life separate, so when I'm at home I don't have to worry about work. Remote work blurs the line, so you're never truly away from work because your home is your workplace. This can lead to you spending a lot more time working.

Remote work also makes communication very difficult, so a query that can be resolved in seconds in an office can take a lot longer when working remotely. These delays would all add up and would ultimately destroy productivity.

The other problem is that, given half a chance, many people won't do any work at all. Remote work makes it easy for the slackers to avoid work, which increases the workload for more diligent people.

I hate everting about remote work, but fortunately it seems the majority of people feel the same. Hopefully we can all get back to the office soon.

People who have behaved in a financially irresponsible manner, and have racked up massive debts, should not be rewarded. That goes for both individuals and corporations. Rewarding irresponsible behaviour will only lead to more irresponsible behaviour. Once their debts are cleared, low class individuals will simply rack up more debts and expect them to be cleared in the future. Poorly run businesses will expect the government to bail them out every time they fail.

Debts should absolutely never be cleared. Doing so is a road to economic ruin. People and businesses must take responsibility for their own actions. No exceptions!

...For showing us the benefits of serif fonts. Sans-serif fonts make it impossible to distinguish between an uppercase 'I' and a lowercase 'L'. If we type a string of letter that alternate between uppercase 'I' and a lowercase 'L' we end up with IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl and we can't even tell which are the 'I's and which are the 'L's.

Now, because of this absurdity of font design, you, Al Worden, have been mistaken for being an Artificial Intelligence. After seeing so many AI articles on Slashdot, I suspect at least 90% of readers read your name as Ay Eye Worden. Font designers have wiped out your life's accomplishments and reduced you to the level of a Twitter chatterbot!

Seriously, font designers really need to do something about this. You shouldn't have two different letters that look identical. They really shouldn't need telling this, but apparently they do.

They're simply idiots. This is why socialism and communism always fails. The people in charge typically aren't very competent, and although they may be trying to help, they're just not as intelligent as they think they are. Socialism and communism gives all the power to this small group of idiots, and society invariably collapses as a result.

Your subject "Murderous Governments" is very apt. However, most governments typically aren't murderous because of maliciousness but because of utter incompetence. Mao didn't intend to kill 20million people, he was just an idiot. Chavez didn't mean to destroy his country, but because of his incompetence his efforts to help ended up wrecking society. Bernie doesn't intend to kill millions of people, but his policies likely would.

Hopefully this virus will cause some people to realise that it's not a good idea to give total control of your lives to "leaders" who typically couldn't run a bath, let alone a country. Sadly, I doubt it, and no matter how many times socialist countries collapse due to inept leadership, there will still be people insisting that "it'll work this time!".

I've never heard of Stefan Molyneux, so I have no idea how accurate the information is, but what strikes me is that all the cited articles are from left wing publications. The Guardian, The Independent, the Washington Post, CNN, etc, etc. Essentially then, Wikipedia is giving you one side of the argument. That's not neutral or accurate, that's purely biased propaganda.

I followed the Wikipedia fiasco about GamerGate, and it was exactly the same there - pure propaganda citing only left-wing sources. GamerGate was about a game designer offering sexual favours to members of the games media in exchange for favourable coverage. Gamers objected to this because they were being intentionally mislead about the quality of a game by corrupt games journalists. However, Wikipedia uses purely one-sided sources to present GamerGate as being about evil male gamers harassing and threatening poor female developers. The article goes straight into the bullshit in the first paragraph:

It cites all sorts of articles from the left wing media backing up its claims, while never presenting the opposing side. Even about the FBI investigation, which found no evidence of harassment, it makes the excuse that it was "plagued with jurisdictional issues," and rather than admitting there was no harassment campaign, Wikipedia spins it by saying the FBI investigation "ultimately closed with the FBI failing to identify the perpetrators." Right, so it was all the FBI's failure that they couldn't find anyone guilty...

This is how Wikipedia operates. The project has been hijacked by the far-left so only left wing sources are permitted. For this article to claim Wikipedia is fighting misinformation is absurd. Wikipedia is misinformation.

So it costs $150/hr to employ nine skilled people? Throw in the building costs, equipment costs, administrative costs, and based on your mathematics they'd be earning a few dollars an hour. This clearly shows that Bernie supporters don't know the true cost of things.

No, the estimates are accurate. You're just not very good with numbers, as your $150/hr figure shows.

Yes, just like Chavez's socialist policies benefited Venezuelans. Oh wait, they didn't. They bankrupted the country, lead to hyperinflation and crashed the economy. But don't worry, socialism will work this time! They just weren't doing it right every other time they tried it!

Classic case of projection. You're accusing the right of doing what the left are already doing via Google, Twitter, Youtube etc. Now you're upset when somebody tries to use the same tools against you. Perhaps the left should have considered this possibility when you engaged mass suppression of right wing opinions, labelling every conservative viewpoint as "hate speech." Censorship is never a good idea because it invariably ends up being used against the censors. Welcome to the world you've created.

Oh look, more projection. Major technology companies, such as Google, have been using their financial muscle to push a left wing agenda. Major media companies, such as Disney, have effectively been commandeered by the left and are using their financial muscle to push a left wing agenda. In October 2017 George Soros transferred $18billion to his Open Society Foundations, using his financial muscle to push a left wing agenda. The left has been using it's financial muscle to push its agenda for decades. Now, when there's one case of the reverse possibly happening, you scream injustice. What a hypocrite.

The Republicans are in a good position to retake the house and retain the senate and the presidency. If that happens you can look forward to a much needed realignment. From the recent panels at CPAC, it looks like fixing the bias at the technology and social media companies will be a high priority. We might finally get to hear both sides of the argument, and you're clearly not happy about that.

So, a company that rapes its users has signed a pledge with an organisation that rapes little boys, and we're supposed to be convinced by this?

If Microsoft wants to convince us it's an ethical organisation, it should start off by fixing its absurdly unethical behaviour with Windows 10. Until then, there's no reason to believe that Microsoft will ever be behave in an ethical manner.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the part about restricted mode, which makes it very hard for anyone to find the video and reduces the number of views to practically nothing.

Free speech has little value if nobody can hear what you're saying.

If you make predictions sufficiently far into the future, there's no way to refute them or have any rational debate. The green body has been using this technique for decades, making wild predictions about the future that are impossible to refute at the time.

Unfortunately for them, the internet has made it easy to look back and laugh at their predictions. Take this article in the Guardian from August 1999, which reports on a study by the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit. Yes, that's the same University of East Anglia the climategate emails were leaked from. It predicts that:

Hmm, I haven't heard about any malaria outbreaks in Spain.

Um...nope.

Let me check. No, the Maldives are still there.

No, the Mediterranean is still a popular destinations for British tourists, and I haven't heard anyone saying the temperatures are unbearable.

My brother just got back from a skiing holiday in the Alps. He had a great time. You know, because it was all still covered in snow. If it wasn't covered in snow his skiing holiday would have been a bit shit.

So, that was all bullshit from the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia. Of course, they're not actually scientists, just Marxists using environmentalism as a front to push a socialist agenda and increase immigration for "climate refuges." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabart, gave the game away when he said about the Green New Deal, "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." It would apparently advance "social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership." Once again, we see that environmentalism is just socialism by the back door.

Anyway, I'll see you boys in 2050 when we can look back at this article and have a good laugh. Assuming we're not living in some sort of Marxist nightmare by then.

Here's a clip from the film showing the quality of action you can expect. It looks like bad amateur wrestling. They're not coming anywhere close to making contact with the punches, and it looks absurd when these limp wristed attacks somehow send the men flying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXZLgB6FXZU

Aside from that, telling the primarily male audience that they're scum probably doesn't help.

So, he's proposing we sit around doing nothing while our enemies develop low cost, highly-effective automated drones. Then, after building millions of them, they send them over to slaughter us. Meanwhile, we'll be left defenceless because Yang was opposed to advanced weaponry. Let me guess, Yang also wants nuclear disarmament so we won't even have the nuclear deterrent?

It's been shown throughout history that if you can't defend your land, somebody will come along and take it off you. Just ask the Native Americans who tried using bows and arrows to defend against rifles and were promptly slaughtered. Superior technology is key to defence, so it's necessary we at least keep pace with the rest of the world, and that includes developing drones and anti-drone defences.

Huawei has been a popular choice amongst UK mobile networks for years, and their equipment is already used extensively in the 4G network. Their equipment is certainty used by EE and Vodafone, and I would imagine the other networks as well. If Huawei is a security threat, then it's a bit too late to start worrying about it now.

One has to wonder whether it even is a security threat. Firstly, end-to-end encryption is being used extensively these days, so even if you have access to the network equipment, all the data flowing over it is encrypted. Secondly, the Five Eyes have shown very effectively that if you collect all network data, you end up with so much data that it becomes impossible to sort through, and is therefore of no value. More precise, targetted surveillance is likely more effective than full network surveillance. The best way to target individuals would be through their handsets rather than through the network. Since Huawei is the second largest phone maker in the work, and their phones are used extensively in Europe (including by Boris Johnson), they already have considerable options for surveilling targets of interest.

Given that we're already knee deep in Huawei network equipment and handsets, this performance about the 5G network comes across as being rather ridiculous. It's all grandstanding by clueless politicians and clickbait by equally clueless "journalists".

So he's suggesting that we shouldn't speculate on the nature of the universe? We should focus only to things that can be observed from our tiny dot in space?

Isn't speculation part of the scientific process? You first come up with a theory, then you try to device an experiment to prove or disprove that theory. At this point there are many theories we can't prove through observation or experimentation, but that doesn't many we won't be able to in the future.

To close our minds to the nature of the universe, and focus purely on things we can observe, seems like a road that will lead nowhere. Innovative thinking is an important part of science, as is failure. Even if most of these theories turn out to be wrong, the important thing is that we're trying to find the truth.