since they killed the "download & transfer via USB" option last year.

The the "download & transfer via USB" option on the Amazon website, I mean.

this just means you can't purchase, borrow, or download new content for those devices through Amazon. And this was already the case for all the Kindles that don't have wifi, since they killed the "download & transfer via USB" option last year.

I'm sure the thought is that people will buy new Kindles - and I'm sure many people will, especially with the confusing way this news is being shared. But pre-2012 Kindles still work, just with no reason to buy books from Amazon. Seems stupid to me to turn away all the people that want to keep buying books but don't want to buy a new Kindle (and really there's several reasons to not, some of which might be accessibility issues for some people; for example they replaced the text-to-speech feature with a pitiful, cumbersome screen reader after they bought Audible), but I guess they're counting on people not being able to figure out they can keep using them.

If the pace of claims is so large that you can't fix them all

So, what, they just leave in security vulnerability bugs that anyone can now easily find using AI?

That's interesting - I also know someone that gravitates towards and shares AI slop daily, that has mental disabilities. Worst part is, lately if we tell him it's AI (because he'll share stuff like "10 unexplained videos" and directly ask what we think it is, or ask why something happened in a video, or how something was done) he gets defensive, saying things like "not everything is AI!" He can't understand that because he's engaging with AI slop, the algorithm shows him more AI slop, so his feed is all AI slop now.

That's some ridiculous circular logic. If we let fewer unsafe drivers drive, not driving will be safer. And even people that truly need a car to get to work don't need a car with only one person in it; they can simply get into a vehicle that SOMEONE ELSE IS DRIVING.

They can be just as productive WITH SOMEONE ELSE DRIVING THEM. It will just be less convenient and perhaps embarrassing (not that not driving is inconvenient and embarrassing, but people that drive everywhere often feel it is). Countless people that CAN'T drive manage.

I'm sure there are many reasons people pay for MS Office when Google Docs is free.

Personally, I wanted a real-time cloud backup system, so I chose OneDrive, which costs about the same as other cloud backup systems

But you said "People will always choose the free versions".

Just as you do not care about harms to children

There you go assuming my opinion again. I actually do care about harm to children, which is why I don't like bullshit that makes you feel better but does nothing to stop harm to children.

The internet is more closely aligned to the road, and web sites are the stores. Anyone can walk along the road, but to enter some stores, proof age is required.

Okay, let's go with that.
If you go into a store that requires proof of age, purchase a porn mag, and put it on the road outside the store, or at the playground, or at the community center... a child can look at it. The porn mag is not going to ask for any proof of age before it opens. It is still only the purchasing that is behind an age check. Checking ID at the door simply moves the point of that age check.
Buying a gun is behind an age check in the US too, by the way. Heck possessing is too in most states (minors are only supposed to use them in certain situations and/or with supervision). The age checks clearly aren't doing shit.
Porn is available in civilized countries too. Laws about internet porn are very new - civilized countries had internet porn without age verification laws for decades. And the USA was fucked up long before the internet came along. (And actually, violent crime has been steady going down in the US since the world wide web came along. That's an observed correlation, I'm not suggesting any causation.) So porn ain't the problem and even if it was forcing 4chan to do age checks wouldn't do shit about it.

If stores dont want to obey OUR laws, then lock their doors against us

Sorry, the US has anti-discrimination laws, so a store that locked out foreigners would be breaking OUR laws. You'll just have to not go in.

Web sites that have no "adult" content, eg most stores,

Hold on now. Most stores in the US do have "adult content" (alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc. And some things that don't require age verification but that I would consider adult content, but I won't get into that). The only time age verification is needed at the door is when a store has exclusively adult content. So, by the logic of web sites are the stores, 4chan wouldn't even be one that has to ID at the door. They would, again, only have to ID when someone purchases something.
And if you don't plan on going into any place nor buying anything that requires age verification, you can leave your ID at home and you can still walk on the road. Heck you're not even required to get an ID, actually.

They sell porn mags at those weed stores? Or I guess you want to talk about weed now?
If you show your ID and go into a weed store, then purchase some weed, then you then take some weed (or a porn mag) and sit it on your coffee table, it will not ask for age verification before your 12 year old cousin smokes it (or opens the mag).

The adult that purchases the porn mag or weed has to be responsible with it, and not leave it unsecured where an unsupervised 12 year old can get it and look it at or smoke it. Just as the adult that purchases internet access has to be responsible with it and not leave it unsecured where an unsupervised 12 year old can use it inappropriately. And yeah, some people won't be responsible. But we still don't require age verification before weed is smoked or porn mags are viewed.

Although actually, a weed store is not a good analogy for the internet, since there's some things that are appropriate for 12 year olds on the internet, while a weed store only has things that are inappropriate for 12 year olds. A better analogy is the many grocery stores in SanFran that sell alcohol and cigarettes. You have to show ID to purchase alcohol or cigarettes, but not before entering a grocery store that sells them. 12 year olds are allowed in grocery stores, even unsupervised. The bottles of alcohol in the grocery store aren't going to ask for ID if a 12 year old opens one up and starts drinking it. But parents are expected to supervise their children in the grocery store until each child is mature enough that they can be trusted to not drink the alcohol. If a child does drink alcohol in the grocery store, the alcohol (which would be the website in this analogy) isn't blamed, and the alcohol manufacturer (which would be the webmaster this analogy) isn't blamed. Nobody says the grocery store should start requiring IDs before letting anyone in, nobody says bottles of alcohol should start requiring ID before they open. It's that specific child and the parents that are in trouble. The child for drinking the alcohol and the parents for not supervising the child well enough.

But, we've had pretty much this same conversation before, multiple times. I wish Slashdot had a block option.

No, that only sets a precedent for requiring age-verification before allowing purchase of the writings (speech) of a third person. A 12 year old can walk up to a porn mag and open it with no age verification.

the free open source alternatives aren't equivalent.

They're all crap.

I completely disagree, but, it's not like people won't use things that are crap (look at Windows).

MS Office and Google Docs fully solve this problem

So why does anyone pay for MS Office when Google Docs is free?

I looked it up before I asked, and everything I saw said that you CAN sideload on iOS. Can you provide a citation for it not being allowed?

Seems to me that Google's move may be in violation of competition laws (although it seems you can still do it after a 24 hour wait?), so they may end up having to walk that back. Either way, that doesn't answer my question of how currently - before this change is put into place - banning an app means your software will be banned from the "smartphone" ecosystem, and how it's different than software not being in the Microsoft Store or in a Linux distro's default repositories.

I think marketing is the difference though, not freeness. After all, many people pay for subscriptions to Adobe, Office (or whatever they're calling it now), etc. instead of using free open source alternatives.

This duopoly means that if they decide to ban an app together, your software will be banned from the "smartphone" ecosystem.

Genuine question - How is this the case when you can sideload? How is it any different than software not being in the Microsoft Store or in a Linux distro's default repositories?

Youtube Premium (that's what it's called now, has been for longer than it was called Youtube Red) costs $13.99 per month, which is considerably more than a one time fee of $5.99. Musi also allows background play (listening while the app isn't on the screen, i.e. when it's minimized or the screen is locked/off), which you would otherwise have to pay the $13.99 per month for. Musi doesn't advertise this feature (probably so Google doesn't come after them) but I've seem people call it "the youtube background play app", suggesting this is the main feature they use it for.