The problem with encryption is not that the police shouldn't have access to the data (with a warrant), it's that there's no way to grant only the police access. Those who want strong encryption believe keeping the data private from third parties is the greater good.
My current GF (who is, of all things, an orthodontist) is into this shit.
Get out while you still can (easily). Assuming you eventually marry her and have kids, do you want either arguments over whether to medicate your kids if they truly need some medication prescribed by a doctor or here secretly withholding medication from your kids and giving them quack remedies instead?
The law was written well before anyone could place housing ads on the internet. The closest non-internet equivalent would be if you posted your ad on telephone poles except in predominantly non-white neighborhoods. But even that isn't illegal. So if that isn't, why is not showing an ad to certain people online illegal?
You might be able to argue that it should be illegal, but, as written, it's not.
So your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
To fix Twitter, just remove all direct messaging. All the harassment would stop. Sure, people could still tweet all manner of vile things, but only people who have opted in to follow them would see it.
... as the plutocrats and their champagne caviar cocktails arrive safely.
When most cars are self-driving, including less expensive cars, I'd suppose that they'd all prioritize passenger safety.
I'm pretty sure Pedestrians (in the US) have right of way in just about every situation.
It's only in crosswalks (including unmarked ones at corners), so not just any old place. Jay walking is still illegal. Pedestrians are also forbidden on freeways.
Flip the situation around and see what your response is. Would you be okay with it if Facebook and Google were pushing hard for a (R) candidate in a close election?
There's a difference between liking it and believing it's within their right to do. In my original post, I never said whether I liked it. I only questioned why people are thinking they have no right to do it.
So, while am still not saying whether I would like your hypothetical flipped case, yes, I believe they would have a right to do it. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.
... except with Facebook and other forms of social media, their purpose is supposed to be to give a voice to EVERYONE who wants to use it and contribute content.
There's no evidence that Facebook is censoring anything. The only grief they received was over the Trending Topics thing (which nobody really cares about anyway) --- and this case isn't related to that.
... when Apple decide they don't care about the Apple watch any more and shut down the servers that enable it to work, it could well stop functioning altogether; many pieces of modern tech are like this.
Yes, many tech devices are like that, but the Apple Watch isn't one of them: it tethers to the iPhone, but the iPhone isn't like that either. The only relevant servers are for iCloud that enable cloud backups and iPhone-to-Mac syncing for things like contacts and events, but even those aren't required for the phone or Mac to work.
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.