Lol they’ll charge customers more if they get regulated. But that means they think customers would pay it, which means they think customers could be paying it now but aren’t, which means they aren’t generating as much revenue now for their shareholders as possible, which makes them a Bad Corporation.

Well yeah. They’re selling snake oil, and they better get as much money as they can now. That cash is going to dry up in a couple of years, and then where will they be. They’ll have to do real work again.

This should have been done decades ago, and I think law was strong enough decades ago to make it happen, it’s just that district attorneys didn’t want to piss off large businesses.

If a company shows on their website that they are selling you something, you as a buyer have the reasonable expectation that you’ve actually purchased it, and through that purchase, you can do all the things that you would with anything you own. When that’s not true, they haven’t actually sold you something. They’ve rented you something, and they know it, and that’s a deceptive business practice.

Which is to say, I’m happy to see some improvement on potential enforcement for false advertising, but the reality is I’m not too optimistic that people will seriously follow up on it because they already had a couple decades to do so.

He already got suspended. His weapon was suspended there, on this outside of the MRI machine.

The question, as always, is enforcement. It’s a great idea, and good for them for making it happen, and then we’ll find out if they were serious.

I probably wouldn’t describe them as flawed, because the goal wasn’t and couldn’t ever be perfection, so then everything is flawed, but then is it really a flaw? It sounds like more of an issue of what’s useful in what type of situation.

You’re talking about the wrong thing. The Mozilla Foundation is and has been acting a fool in recent years. Firefox, the open source program, is doing mostly OK. Obviously the two are closely connected, but they’re definitely not the same thing, and this matters when discussing policy.

Now now. If Mozilla is breaking the law here, of course someone would report them for it. There’s no need to shoot the messenger when everything was predictable.

I appreciate your apprehension. Fortunately, you don’t need to speculate. Go try it and find out.

I don’t think that’s what the relevant case law shows. There’s no legal requirement for symmetry between the words uttered and the actions undertaken by others.

First, we know that because it doesn’t say that in the case law, and second because you can think of obvious examples where the speaker should be in trouble. If I yell at you to punch someone in the face and instead you kick them in the knee, probably I should be held accountable.

It will be difficult to get this past the judge, because the First Amendment generally protects speech, even lies. Specifically inciting violence is not protected, but is this speech vague enough? My gut suggests it is, but we’ll see what the courts think.

If the courts OK the charges, there’s a passing chance that a jury could convict, because the effects are so clear and shocking. It’s easy to make a solid case.

These are criminal charges, which if successful (unlikely) would have more severe consequences for Trump and his couch-loving companion.

And they could just regulate the tech itself, keep everyone safe, but no, they only block the Bad Countries. Because it’s about money. Nobody calling the shots cares about safety here.

It ended OK after three weeks behind bars accused of murder? That’s not an OK end unless people get fired and she gets paid.

Russia has many different rich people in it. Some have more free cash than others, of course. It isn’t some monolithic entity.

Not just capitalism. Also NIMBYism.

Lots of options available. YT is slowly cracking down on them. That’s OK, just keep your medium run media consumption plans flexible.

The point is that the post title was false (or intentionally very misleading, if you insist on creatively parsing it). Accuracy in post titles is important.

For the most part? That’s an empirical claim. Any evidence? My gut disagrees with you, but my gut also has no evidence.

I might help people because it makes me feel good, sure. But I might also do it because those are my values, long since established, and I try to live by said values. So it’s about what following a self-imposed expectation, not about getting something. For some people, some of the time.

Similarly, the argument that “being selfless is selfish” is not useful and provably false. Just go ask people, and they’ll tell you why they did things and how they felt. Then you have to argue that many of them are either lying or mistaken, which doesn’t seem like a winnable argument.