Fair points, but one comment:

There are ways to monitor the health, age, and usage of a battery. Sort of like the odometer and other service monitors in a car. If swapping catches on, I would expect to see such battery monitors become ubiquitous, and attached right to the battery.

Right, right!

Just as ridiculous as having judges with no training in some science "feel" that their opinion is a better judge than pure science and adjudicate for dumping more poison into a stream.

Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you want.

*You* want some politicians to overrule (probably due to bribes) what sober professionals in the field have assessed is the best path forward.

How can it be independent if the president can fire them for any reason at any time?

Couldn't he just get the people he wants in there? How "independent" is *that*?

Unfortunately, given how the laws are written, the president can fire and replace people he doesn't like, until the whole of the civil service does exactly what the president wants. He may not be a King as in able to declare Laws that Congress is supposed to (although he does, through EO, now) but he can have policies that in his own way enact the laws of Congress. Or just ignore them and hope Congress ignores your transgessions.

Takes too many votes to impeach, anyway. Any the boots on the ground, in every way, are doing what he wants, regardless of laws and congress.

President may not be a king but is surely acting like one.

Sorry, it's not.

Our government was set up with 3 and only 3 co-equal branches of government, not 4, not 5, not 67.

The civil service is part of the executive branch.

Thanks for playing and learn your civics.

Silly FCC, now it knows better!

As evidenced by the fact that is no longer has "independent" in its mission statement.

Except that would never happen, and the SC if necessary would make sure.

The laws are bought and paid for by Republicans now.

No, they expect the Supreme Court to back them up all all the court challenges made to Democratic rule.

Just wait, they won't let a Democratic president have nearly the same power as Trump has. Neither with the Democrat try to grab unconstitutional power.

"The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government"
Nope, no, and NO!

Your fourth co-equal branch of government would be the deep state, in that case.

There are only THREE equal branches of government and this nasty thought that the civil service should equal some fourth co-equal branch of government is just bunk.

Why bother to hire a consultant, who will most likely be using AI anyway?

Okay, sorry. I didn't realize you're that close to the issue. And that it affects you in that way.

So, it sounds like you're saying the Feds want the provider's contact info, and the Feds collect the fee from them. The user is not involved, as I mistakenly thought. (It's the provider, not the user, who wants Safe Harbor here.)

That still doesn't sound like a restraint on free speech. Governments need contact info from people and organizations in order to function. And occasionally they charge fees for certain services. If the fees aren't excessive, I don't see a problem with them.

Now, if the government tries to influence what content can be removed and what cannot, then I do see a problem.

Or are you saying the MAGAnauts wanted to sue Twitter for kicking them off? Is that what 230 keeps them from doing? I thought it was protection from content that is posted, not protection from policing on their platform.

As I understand it, Twitter/X can do that even without 230.

I don't understand how that follows. A requirement that someone needs to be registered on a site for communication purposes does not sound like a suppression of free speech by the government. Nor does a fee, which if I understand correctly, is not "required" by the provider to charge, and is not collected by the government.