In 2005 controlled substances became defined as interstate commerce. More specifically, if you grow marijuana for personal use and it never leaves your land, it's still interstate commerce. Granted, it wasn't interstate commerce back in the 1790s, but it retroactively became so.

They only could regulate commerce and building your own gun is not interstate commerce

That makes a lot of sense, but hasn't SCOTUS strongly disagreed since Wickard v. Filburn (1942), and re-asserted throughout the years, e.g. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)?

AFAIK there is no possible human activity which isn't interstate commerce. Did you just fart? Then you just impacted the interstate market for canned farts.

If you can narrow markets down to sub-markets that much before considering whether or not they're monopolies, then even having copyright, patents or trademarks would be an antitrust violation, as would any other exclusive rights situation.

"You want to watch not just any movie, but specifically Inside Out? Sounds like the Pixar monopoly has you by the balls."

"You want a shoe with a Nike logo on it? Well, then, you're stuck with the Nike monopoly."

"You want to hire me to host your website instead of someone else? Looks like I have a monopoly, so bend over!"

Obviously the courts would never go that far. I know I'm being absurd. But where is the line? Your iOS example sounds a lot like that to me.

'Tween this and the Cellebrite thing, Moxie Marlinspike has been up to top-notch shenanigans lately! I love it.

Facebook doesn't give a rat's ass about protecting users from Trump; they want to protect themselves (and their customers, without whom the users have no reason to keep telling Facebook which of the customers' ads they want to see). They want to not get sued or indicted for aiding and abetting crimes, torts, etc. They want to cultivate/protect their image. They want to maximize sales revenue.

Don't they have the right to protect their own interests? If I want you to put something on your website, you don't think it's reasonable that you should have a say in whether or not you have to do it?

Should Disneyland be compelled to host a porn convention? It's not about whether or not you think they should do it, or whether porn is good or bad; it's about who gets to decide what Disney's assets get used for, how much (if at all) Disneyland should be forced to work directly against the image they want to create for themselves, etc. Just as Disney doesn't want to be associated with porn, ad companies don't want to be associated with fraud. We sometimes disagree with them ("porn isn't bad!" or "Trump supporters deserve to be parted from their money!") but it's not our decision to make when it comes to someone else's website.

It is your decision on your website, though, and if the government or a private company ever tries to censor you, you can count on my support. But I have the usual warning to leftists: don't confuse your right to be left unmolested, with an entitlement to the use of other peoples' resources. Nobody has to help you .. yet. Maybe America is eventually due for a Communist revolution and we'll start allocating resources the way you hope, but it's insane to already think of it as a done deal, and until you make it happen, the rest of us are proceeding with America-as-usual, and I'll even admit plenty of us oppose the proposed change.

Imagine Thomas Paine being compelled to give space to a British rebuttal in his Common Sense pamphlet. That hypothetical story alone, might inspire me to pick up my musket as much as the rest of the contents of the pamphlet! (So, naturally, I'm sure the story will be circulating on Facebook in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..)

Private corporations have always had a voice, and in 2010 it was ruled for even their money to be constitionally protected as speech. At least this is just about Facebook's actual speech, rather than whom they pay to speak for them.

I know people here don't like Facebook, but before them, there were a million websites saying whatever the fuck they felt like. Now it's a million and one. Surely we can sustain this increase.

Yes, it's disappointing that so many people ask that one website for its opinion about which news is the most important. But you can say pretty much the same thing about any other media company. There are probably people out there who are pissed that so many people watch the PBS Newshour, read the Wall Street Journal, or visit TorrentFreak.

I say fight fire with fire. If someone tells you to visit a lameass website (e.g. "follow us on twitter" or "connect with us on Facebook") tell them to visit your website (or one of your favorites, if you don't have one of your own yet). The 1770s are still alive and well, it seems, so get printing pamphlets! At least Facebook doesn't have any way to ever, in the slightest, suppress someone else's speech, so if you put yours out there, they just have to sit there and take it. Disagree with Facebook about something? Then say so!

But .. but .. if we don't respect monopolies on proprietary detergent cartridges, what incentive will future manufacturers have to lock their customers into proprietary detergent cartridges? Your attitude is going to undermine our progress away from plain old detergent which Just Works.

The requirement for using a booby trap is that it must be able to identify lawful intruders as distinct from unlawful intruders. It's not an absolute ban.

That would be a good standard for DRM.

Reading plaintext for copyright infringement purposes? Legal to interfere with. Reading plaintext in order to play the movie? Illegal to interfere with. Can't tell because the user's device doesn't have enough CPU to run the standard tribunal of a lawyer AI, a psychic AI, and an engineer AI? Then interfering is risky.

Sorry, missed the beginning because I was on the phone with one of my lobbyists. On an unrelated note, we need the ID to also include your COVID-19 vaccination status, your preferred personal pronoun, list of tax-exempt organizations that you've donated to, Facebook cookie, FLoC, and your phone's bootloader signature. And for fuck's sake, make sure the ID's bluetooth isn't disablable this time.

I think the harder and more interesting question is: which side should we bet on?

Taunting a bear seems like a bad idea.

OTOH if they really think they've covered their tracks, then there aren't any bears.

It sounds like you know what you want. Isn't it a good idea for you to have the power to attain it, rather than completely trusting in luck/circumstance?

Putting your hand on the PC-to-appliance range dial, seems to me to be a really good way for your phone to be set exactly where you want it. Isn't leaving this decision to the owner/user, the best of all possible worlds? That way, nobody loses.

Not that I disagree with "If you don't like it, don't buy one" at all. That's always top-notch advice. But it's also pretty easy to imagine a child who gets an iPhone from their grandmother for their birthday or some shit like that. They might as well have their hand on the PC-to-appliance dial as well.

No matter what choices Apple makes for what applications users should be allowed to run on their phone, the chances that it will exactly match any particularly user's desires is vanishingly small. I'm thinking of a number from 1 to a billion. Put your feet in Apple's shoes and try to guess my number. No matter how brilliant you or Apple are, you're probably going to guess incorrectly. And even if you guess it right (holy shit, that was amazing!) I bet you won't guess what number the next guy is thinking of.

That's a really interesting idea. I hadn't heard about the jail before.

Are inmates in Facebook jail successfully blocked from being able to post on Slashdot? If so, that might explain why, to date, nobody has found evidence that your position is true.

The problem is: what if you happen to be right anyway, despite the lack of evidence? Just because Facebook has never been caught jailing anyone, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Because if it happened, you wouldn't ever hear about it. The user wouldn't be able to post about it in a Slashdot comment, for example, or whisper it to a friend, so the story would never get out. For all we know, 99% of the internet users have been silenced. If that happened, how would we know?

But this just raises a new question: how do you know about this jail? Did someone figure out a way around it and smuggle the information to you? Or are you an inmate right now, and have somehow circumvented the system to come here and finally blow the whistle? Tell us more!

They don't decide the future of the internet; they only decide the future of their own users. And you have a say in whether or not you're one of their users.

Some did, but it was also pretty common for that to not be the case.

How does banning LE from buying this information, help the problem? The proposed legislation does not address the national security risk or even claim to. The Chinese government would still be allowed to have their mole. The only thing it would change, is that your state or national government wouldn't be allowed to have the mole. But it'd remain fair game to anyone else: you, me, or the PRC.