I am not a lawyer, but I read the lawsuit, it sounded like the plaintiffs weren't arguing copyright infringement but wanted case law to invalidate fair use as a concept.

Does this mean the Dutch government will own and operate this cloud platform? This would seem to lean a little too much in the fascist direction, very CCP of them. I finally understand why so many on the American and European left are afraid of the far-right rise in Europe. Never thought the Dutch would be far-right.

When these politicians get together they tend to talk about "degrowth" I think this is why they tend to be anti-nuclear.

Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt both survived getting shot. Your list is also missing Andrew Jackson a Democrat who like Teddy continued to give his speech after being shot and got his nickname, Old Hickory, because he had a walking stick made of hickory and was known for assaulting people with it.
Not to mention thinking like this is horrible unless you like having extremists in both parties and the horrible national discourse, and you think it would have been cool if someone shot Biden or Obama.

I understand why this is in the news being Trump's company and all but the people writing about it are acting like this is the first tech IPO. Reddit had an IPO around the same time as Truth Social, it is currently down 21.35%.
Twitter was about 14% below its IPO before Elon Musk said he was going to purchase it.
Facebook was below its IPO for about a year, at one point being 69%.
Early investors are cashing out as they either got stock for free or are below the IPO list price; this trend happens with most stocks.
Since CNBC wrote this article DJT is up 15.6%.

Thats because this is a performative action; removing these rules changed nothing, so why would restoring them do something?
I also remember the old rules had lots of carveouts for mobile ISPs. For instance, T-Mobile's binge on service was a clear violation of what many would call net neutrality. You would think a board that is currently suing Google for anti-trust would see a clear anti-competition violation.

Apple was the boss of his Apple TV show, they don't have anything to do with his podcast. This is just Stewart trying to make headlines based on a lie. I don't even believe his previous claims as he constantly criticized China in the past I would be amazed if Apple cared, and it is currently popular to fearmonger over AI. Fear-mongering AI is much less divisive than falling the majority of your audience's white supremacists or that all gun owners are mass shooters waiting to happen and Apple had no problem with Stewart doing that.

Not only is Stewart unfunny but he is willing to lie for the sake of a joke, which does harm when you sell yourself as a news show. I would even say Stewarts' presentation style has contributed to why it is so difficult to talk to someone with differing political views. He popularized being mad at things you have a poor understanding of.

I agree, I don't get the position that banning Tic Tok is wrong because you aren't banning more. If that is truly how the Tic Tok defenders felt then they should take the small victory and use the as a stepping stone to get more privacy protection. Wozniak accidentally reveals the real reason he is against the "ban" (the bill isn't a ban, it just makes the APK harder to download.) Wozniak gets hedonistic pleasure from Tik Tok that why he wants to keep it. It's like saying I like crake and I fail to see the reasons why I should stop.

Originally Facebook was only for college students. I am not sure why they just go back to that

This bill would not ban kids from using Club Penguin as Club Penguin as it was shut down in 2017. It had many problems with groomers here is an old article from the Atlantic about it. "[Club Penguin], certainly the safest way for unsupervised children to talk to potentially malevolent strangers—but why would you want them to do that in the first place?" https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

I am not sure what you are talking about? The CGI is very cheap, there is a reason why they waited until the 6th episode to have grunts and jackals on the battlefield; they were doing it to save money; which explains why the Elites until then look ugly.

Well, the series didn't need to follow the game to be good by using the names of characters and casting people who have no physical resemblance, personality resemblance, or occupation resemblance they are simply drawing attention to the difference and encouraging the negative comparisons.

At the end of the day, we live in a world where decent 1080p cameras are $50; crisp cinematography is a really low bar to meet, especially considering the millions Paramount spent.

What reasoning do you use to justify such a claim? All studies I have seen say that long COVID highly correlates with inactivity. https://www.news-medical.net/n...

I would say that being lazy is not a good indicator of one's political affiliation and to make such a claim as you do you would need to rely on partisanship, not science.

However, If I were to make a meme argument I would ask everyone to remember all those news articles about how exercise is "far-right," this meme argument would seem to contradict your partisan argument. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/...

I am shocked that people are buying this story. John Stewart had an episode where he called all white people racist and an episode where he claimed all gun owners are potential mass shooters and not wanting sticker gun control means you want dead children. Being worried about AI and China is a pervasive and bipartisan fear for the US public, these are almost nonissues compared to Stewarts' previous episodes. Stewarts' show is being canceled due to low viewership and the writer's strictness. Also, anyone worried about journalism should hate Stewart as he popularised the act is spreading misinformation and misunderstandings as jokes. He would routinely lie it was in the service of a joke; the interviews are a perfect example of this. Stewarts was a good comedian but he is known for a product that allowed people to radicalize based on his disinformation and all of journalism is the worst as a result.

This is yet another company virtual signaled their support for net neutrality to such an extreme stance they helped forward misinformation about the FCC rule.
Now they are voluntarily taking down content when they have no legal obligation to and including the phrase hate speech, a concept that is almost meaningless outside of their TOS.
Don't understand why being illiberal is the new regressive trend in Silicon vally.

I predict they are going to find crypto needs to be regulated. Ingnoring that multiple laws were already broken (so more is not going to change anything) and that another layer of bureaucracy would have prevented this (ignoring that multiple layers of bureaucracy with the power to preemptively act failed to act prior to now),

I also predict that a bunch of politicians who constantly complain about the dangers of money in politics are going to ignore some inconvenient facts.