Tax evasion = not paying a tax that you are legally obligated to pay (100% not OK)
Tax avoidance = structuring your affairs so as to minimize the tax that you are legally obligated to pay (100% OK).

This isn't "neoliberal" word play. It's a fundamental concept of U.S. tax law, and has been for decades:

"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).

"Over and over again the courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more tax than the law demands; taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions." Newman v. Commissioner, 159 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1947).

Is it unfair that corporations and the rich (with their armies of lawyers) can minimize their taxes in ways far beyond what the average citizen is capable of? Absolutely. But as long as a corporation/individual is obeying the law, I'd blame those unfair results on the byzantine nature of our tax code. Those corporations/individuals are just acting rationally within that system.

Agreed. For those too lazy to read the order, here's the only language I saw that had any relation to the "tinfoil hat" stuff in the summary:

Sec. 5.2 - "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate."

It's pretty clear from the rest of the EO that "priority communications requirements" means making sure the government can communicate with itself during emergencies.

Also important:

Section 7(d): "Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect ... the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof."

Section 7(e): "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law..."

...but not as much as your UID

The fact that we live in a democratic society and that the people who write and enforce those laws are elected by us?

Best part: "With a watch like this you don't need to tell time, you tell people what time it is."

I'll just name my kid Anonymous Coward. Then at least whatever they do on Slashdot won't come back to haunt them...

You have it backwards. The idea is that, in addition to free Wi-fi, you'll get free access to various websites which are normally paid-access only.

From their press release (emphasis is mine):

"...on July 1, Starbucks will turn on one-click, free Wi-Fi through AT&T in all U.S. company operated stores. Building on the Wi-Fi update, Schultz also revealed plans for a new online customer experience called the Starbucks Digital Network, in partnership with Yahoo!, which will debut later this fall. This online experience – available only in U.S. company operated Starbucks stores – will be unique in its content offerings, allowing customers free unrestricted access to various paid sites and services such as wsj.com, exclusive content and previews, free downloads, local community news and activities, on their laptops, tablets or smart phones."

Plus, China has a ready-made supply of industry experts!

Actually, I don't think it will really affect bit.ly in as direct a way as people are imagining. Twitter wraps the bit.ly URL, so bit.ly still gets to capture all the links/clicks. FTFA:

"our current plan is that no user will see a t.co URL on twitter.com but we still have some details to work through. the links will still be displayed as they were sent in, but the target of the link will be the t.co link instead."

...and...

"we're not modifying or tampering with URLs - if you send us a bit.ly link, we will wrap that bit.ly link. analytics will still work, etc."

So people will still see a bit.ly URL, which will point to a t.co URL, which will resolve to a bit.ly URL, which will resolve to the original URL. Both twitter and bit.ly get their hits, analytics, etc.

Of course, this could indirectly harm bit.ly, because their huge datasets might become less valuable if others (i.e., twitter) are aggregating essentially the same thing.