Just because the American constitution says something, that doesn’t mean it is right, or correct.
“Just ignore it” sounds a great idea, but this is not what actually happens.
It’s like giving sexual advice as “abstinence” it doesn’t work, you end up with more unwanted babies.

The question is, do you want this pandemic to stop, or do you want it to continue?
If you want it to continue, then allowing anti vaccine propaganda to be widely available on social media is a good way to do this.
Alternatively, if you’d like the pandemic to stop, and vaccines are the best route for this, then less anti vaccine propaganda is a good idea.

If you think that a few words on an old document are worth the death of a million Americans, then I deem that foolish.

But perhaps I’m missing something here. If the main groups following this anti vaccine propaganda are Republican idiots (I’m hoping this is a small subset), then this should improve the Democrat vote in subsequent elections. Also, old people die in disproportionate numbers, so that should reduce aged care costs and also increase the Democrat vote.

Is this your plan? It’s very sneaky. Also evil. But definitely pro Democrat.

Social networks are not owned by the government. Free speech rules do not apply to them, they can do whatever they like.
But if they start promoting memes that cause death, I think this is unacceptable. Excessive dieting, cutting, suicide, vaccine opposition, etc.

Does anybody actually think it’s a good idea to encourage people to do things that cause them to die?

Isn’t the first job of a government to protect its people?

Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is definitely unacceptable to me.
Are you suggesting it’s a good idea?

I believe someone one mentioned that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre was unacceptable.
Free Speech is one thing, but intentionally leading people to do something incredibly stupid - like panicking in a crowded theatre, or failing to get a vaccine because they believe there are microchips in it - is dangerous.
So which is more important? Free Speech under all circumstances? Or restraint on dangerous, incorrect, and even lethal statements?

I'm not in the USA, but in most countries, broadcasting dangerous memes is something akin to fraud. Just try promoting Nazism in Germany - things won't go well.

But let's check a case from the USA ...
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr (1919)

Oddly, the right wing conservative party in Australia is called .. Liberal.
Yeah, I know. Weird, right?

But I really don't think they are fooling anyone.
At least I hope not.

Outsourcing is often terrible. I worked for two different banks who did it.
In one, they had sone sort of agreement whereby the new Indian employee actually moved to Australia and lived in a shared accommodation, in a sort of Indian bubble. They may well have been cheap, but 90 percent of them were truly terrible programmers. The odd one was great.
And in the other, bigger, Australian bank, we had offshore outsourcing. Oh boy. We had meeting where the Indian folk sounded like they were sitting on a busy street with elephants going past. We could not understand them, nor they us. Also, it meant any expertise was now in a distant land with no continuity. Great.
And once, I tried to interview a supposed new person, but you could hear someone whispering answers to them. And how would we even know we were interviewing the person to be employed?
Awful. Wasteful.
On the other hand, I did work for an old friend in the uk for a couple of years. They could pass me a problem at the end of their business day, and by their next morning, it would be fixed!

It seems incredible that tiny NZ (population under 5 million) has managed to get a a space launch operation going. And mostly successfully. Fantastic work.
Whilst my home country across the Tasman, with a population of 25 million, is still muntering on about coal and supressing electric cars. Amazing.
Go NZ, go!

"Basic human decency" - Good luck with that.

Give they were sitting in the back of the car, though probably without seatbelts, a kill switch would not have helped much.
Unless you put one for each seat in the car.
Hmm.
“Why aren’t we going to the mall, Mum?”
“Little Timmy has pressed the kill switch”.

And we all thought it was Germans that had no sense of humour.
Turns out it’s Americans.

It was a joke. It flopped.
Can we move on?

It seems utterly absurd to add this blatantly racist exception. Indeed, I doubt its legality.
If the aim is to help people who are poor, why does it matter what colour they are? USA has lots of very poor white people too, indeed, some of said white folks are staggeringly poor.

It amazes me, as a non-American (Australian, actually, and yes, I know we have our own problems), that such an approach is even considered. Obviously, if poor people are overwhelmingly black, then it's going to help mainly black people. Why add a colour bar?

Every time I see some sort of statistic about the USA, somewhere, the numbers get split by colour/race. This barely ever happens for anywhere else. There seems to be some sort of obsession. About 13% of the USA population is black. This is higher than many other countries (UK about 3%, for example, though 7% is non-white. In France, you aren't even allowed to collect such statistics, weirdly). Maybe that's the issue - but why?

Just a thought - maybe this is an evil plan. Propose something, ostensibly to help the poor black community, get it thrown out by the courts, then claim "Look, we tried, vote for us again! [And give us that fat salary]".
Am I being too cynical here?

Myanmar used to be known as Burma. It exported the best teak in the world (hopefully it still does). With (I believe) the help of the British occupiers, they established a long term (teak is very very slow growing) timber industry - it was planned to work over centuries, basically indefinitely.
Teak is a valuable materiel, certainly, but not, perhaps, enough to keep the economy going. They also have gas, gems, and agricultural products.
The GDP per head was USD 1,245 - this is 156th in the world (of 195). Not exactly great, just after Zimbabwe, but there are many worse, eg Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, then much lower on the list are North Korea, Chad. (For comparison, USA 63,000, Australia 52,000, Switzerland 82,000, China 10,839, India 1,877).

I'm sure the military takeover has pretty much nuked a great deal of this economy. Good idea, that. This is what happens when people have elections, then a small group doesn't like the the result. This nearly happened to another country I can think of.

Like many things Apple does, this appears to be motivated solely by greed.
They are trying to entirely shutdown the independent repair shops - you know, the ones that can replace a screen during your lunch hour, as opposed to Apples however long (at however much). If you can't figure out what version something is, how will you get the right part? Of course they could obviate this by making a serial number lookup publicly available. Anybody want to take bets on that being done?

Apple have played similar tricks with cables for decades, but have finally come into sanity with USB-C, though doubtless they'll think of something. Other companies did the same - remember when every charger was custom?
I don't understand why they need to be so greedy - . Apple products are staggeringly profitable, why oppress the follow on market? How much money do you make repairing things anyway?

Perhaps the thrust is to make it prohibitively expensive to repair apple gear. "Sorry madam, the repair for this will be 5,000 dollars. But we can give you a discount on a new shiny one!". Uh huh. Yes, that does sound pretty likely, doesn't it?

And here was me, seriously considering a MacBook Air.
Well, maybe not.

If autonomous driving becomes a reality, and it seems near certain this will happen fairly soon, then truckers will no longer be driving long distance routes. They probably will be driving short haul routes though (I'm not sure why I think this, but somehow it seems likely to me).

Long distance trucking is tedious, and is one of those jobs humans are not well suited to. I'm surprised we don't already have autonomy between major truck stops, with drivers taking over from there. It would be a revolution. I imagine the Teamsters Union in the USA must be losing sleep over this. and other unions elsewhere (Australia, Europe, everywhere with long distance routes - maybe not the UK, as with Brexit they will no longer be exporting to mainland Europe so much).

The problem we expected to have with a "modern economy" was, basically, not enough work.
And to some extent that's true. We will, eventually, pretty much replace/automate all the low end simple jobs, and even some of the medium complex ones.
So the question is, what to do with al the people? Do we
* give them nothing and let them starve to death? (pure capitalism ... possibly Americanism)
* give them fake jobs and have them just about cope? (this is what Soviet Russia did )
* just give them money and basically leave them to play - this hasn't really been tried yet
* something else ... ok, what?
In rich economies, there is definitely enough money for everyone there to have a reasonable life. There's no real reason for anyone to stave, be sick, or not have a roof over their head. The problem is distribution.
In many societies, taxation is adequate to house and basically support its unproductive people. Norway manages this, for example. Other countries make it tougher for their unproductive, from Australia, where it's pretty tough (but some manage to kinda live, and mainly surf), to the USA where it can be very tough indeed, to various countries in Africa where you beg or starve.
I rather like the gentler approach, where people have a basic income, enough to have a tolerable life, with minimal luxuries. In fact, many things we might consider luxuries, like internet access, are in fact very cheap. Medical services can be covered fairly well also (almost everywhere manages this, except, inevitably, the USA). Housing is more challenging, as housing costs have got out of hand in many cities (certainly mine, Sydney).

If you oppress the poor and unproductive too much, they will riot and rebel. Even in ancient Rome, they realised this, thus free bread and circuses.
But imagine the life we could all have where we could, if we wished, take a year off and just hang in there, with enough to get by on. You could try a new project, paint a new painting, write a book, or even just laze in the sun (or snow, to choice). You'd work to get luxuries, or because you wanted to.
It sounds somewhat idyllic, doesn't it? But we are easily rich enough for this. Easily. If, for example, countries cut back considerably on their military outgoings (especially the USA, which spends an incredible 800 billion each year), and replaced most of their other social support, (and taxed the wealthy people and companies property) this could be afforded pretty easily.
USA 25 million unemployed. Give them, say 400 per week (21k per year, considerably above the USA poverty line of 12k) , and we get 520 billion per year. Much less than the military budget. And they'd pump all of that straight back into the economy (instead of saving it, like rich people do). This is not to mention the savings from Social Security, food stamps, etc, which the USA is awash with. (I still can't believe that Walmart actually issues its staff with instructions on how to claim food stamps).

We should do this.