You are implying that "investors" make mostly good decisions. Citation needed.

You are replying to an AC troll who will find any small thing to discredit the whole, because somehow they have an agenda to discredit the EFF, which should be a big red flag to anyone here. Btw it's bullshit, the EFF has not defended that person as a person, they have only said that disclosing the AT&T vulnerability was valid and not irresponsible.

This distinction might only exist in your head. Apple as a company either rewards this behaviour or it doesn't. The company's actions is the sum of the actions taken by individuals while representing the company.

Just to be clear, in that context, Meta is the one trying to extend their authority over EU citizens, with manipulative patterns. Right-wing content has been mass-"suggested" by Meta, unsolicited, following Trump's election.

It's worse than that. I remember buying a jacket in the US and the employees were unable to tell me the actual price (after taxes). So not only is the price incorrect, you also can't get the correct price before having to pay. Sure you can always change your mind at that stage, but that's beside the point. Give me the price so I can decide if I want to buy it.

Only if we let the free market sort out healthcare. Which we really shouldn't.

It's a nice way to look at it. Another is that laissez-faire capitalism fosters and rewards dishonesty.

I think because the USA culture is pathological in generally letting people fend for themselves rather than helping them, at least at the level of government. In this case, individuals like you and me supposedly have freedom of choice against the economic far west dominated by big companies, who by the way are also allowed to "lobby" lawmakers. I think this absolutism about freedom of choice, which in practice is largely illusory, is deeply ingrained in the culture. Therefore it's ok if companies are dishonest, they're just using their freedom of expression. It's really stupid, it's also a foundation of right-wing thinking all over the world. It's almost inextricable from the American Dream.

"if you disregard all the data points that inconvenience me, what I say actually seems to make sense"

Europe is not anomalously low. The US is anomalously high for a developed country, and for a western country.

Stop using "political" when what you really mean is "partisan". The topic at hand is very much political, since it concerns the public good.

Most civilised countries consider that a number of things, including electricity, are a public service and therefore heavily regulated to avoid this kind of issue. Letting the market sort it out is only great if you don't care about the common good.

If that were true, copy protection would not exist and software companies would not care about software piracy or about the right to do a personal backup. Your statement is too simplistic for this discussion.

What you say sounds nice but it's not true. Start here https://www.cfr.org/articles/u...

Oh I agree that the time that kids spend using Meta products needs to be reduced or eliminated. I also think that it's naive to believe it can happen without involving Meta to some extent. Just like reducing drug trafficking reduces drug consumption. The metaphor doesn't have to be 1:1, it just has to work on the point being made. Point in case: if nothing changes in what Meta offers and how it offers it, kids will find a way to access it, even if we tell them not to.

Would you make the same argument about kids using heroin, just stop using it?

For context: one major issue with social media is that it's addictive, and Facebook in particular has made efforts to be as addictive as possible.