Jeff Geerling had a similar issue when he found that some of the advertised features of a Bosch dishwasher were locked behind an app and you had to connect it to WiFi to enable:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeffgeerling.com%2Fb...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

I think in his case he was so invested in time with installing the thing before he found out about that limitation that he just sucked it up and kept it. We all encouraged him to take it back to make a statement to Bosch and the retailer but I get why one would feel defeated at that point.

(For the record, I don't have a beef with smart TVs but I draw the line at WiFi kitchen appliances)

The people who host social media platforms are just as entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of association as you or I are. You are suggesting that a platform that doesn't want to associate with you (or any specific comments / uploads) should not enjoy the same rights as others that would host your comment. This is a legally dubious position that I suspect wouldn't hold up in court. You would have to make *all* platforms liable for user content regardless of whether or not they moderate other unrelated comments.

Section 230 is about civil liability for platforms that host user-supplied content. It's about people suing platforms because they think your speech caused some kind of harm to them and they ought to have done something about it before that alleged harm happened. Nothing to do with the government issuing fines.

The issue isn't that platform don't have the right to moderate as they see fit without 230. The issue is that platforms can become liable to all sorts of novel litigation if they don't heavily regulate every bit of content (comments, videos, etc.) that a user posts. They will have to have armies of lawyers on staff to constantly research all the ways they could get sued for something you might post and extensive resources to police the content more so than they already do.

230 by and large shields platforms from this and forces anyone who has a beef with your content to just go after you instead of the platform.

Not having 230 protections means platforms will likely heavily clamp down on what users can say, do, etc. to the point that you will likely see a lot of websites (mainly smaller ones) shutting down simply because the liability is too great and more draconian moderation from big tech websites that can afford to do moderation at scale.

CEOs are almost always the highest compensated in the company but at a large company like Walmart I guarantee you that the combined cost of all the employees far exceeds that of the employees. Not having a CEO (or not paying him, whatever) wouldn't really change the financial situation of a company.

Now a company where it might actually be the case that the CEO makes way more than all the employees put together is Elon Musk and Tesla's extremely ridiculous compensation package for him. His pay package is actually a large percentage of the company's budget.

That's already a law federally. CFAA.

Laugh all you want but we actually use this.

We tell our customers to "add +100GB to your virtual machine" before upgrading to the latest version of our software and they interpreted it as "add +100GB to the VM and then go in and start extending partitions" but they end up extending the wrong thing and causes headaches.

You can't reduce the root filesystem while it's mounted, so we give them this ISO and tell them exactly what to type to fix what they've done.

The 32-bit thing doesn't matter though. If you still have systems that aren't 64-bit capable then just keep using the old ISO.

It's software. Apple can just offer to help them reset their phones to get the malware off. Apple doesn't have to do any more than that under their warranty obligations. They're not going to lose millions of dollars because of idiots who have that happen to them.

At some point you have to make users responsible for their own actions. Apple can put warnings and confirmation dialogs up on the toggle that allows sideloading and force the user to confirm that they're opening their phone up to possible danger. If people still sideload malware after that warning, it's on them.

An OS that regularly experiences security vulnerabilities, will most certainly continue to have new vulnerabilities discovered, and will no longer receive security updates is in fact insecure.

I don't know where "here" is but in the United States, the government may implement "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions on expressions of speech. You don't have a free speech right to march up and down a residential street at 3AM with a bullhorn and I would argue that you don't have a right to make loud disruptive telephone calls in public either.

The problem is that it's resulted in many unwarranted and unfounded accusations made. Careers have been upended because of the unfounded claims towards Chinese nationals.

America likes to gloat about how we're better than everyone else and that we have all this due process and equal justice for all but this has shown it to be a farce.

I want to make it clear that you and others are using weasel language like "maybe", "we don't really know", and etc. to justify barriers to freedom of speech and anonymity and have not considered lesser impactful means of achieving harm reduction (and have totally ignored probable harms that such laws could cause) before pulling out this big hammer.

But are social ills of social media "addiction" the same as someone who is chronically drunk or a chain smoker? If I "drink" social media every day 10x a day for several years and quit, do I have permanent damage? Probably not.

The comparison isn't there. It seems to me the solution is educating parents and letting parents exercise their discretion on the use of social media in their household.

Maybe parents should be expected do their job and we shouldn't collectively punish millions of youth.

Millions of people do it everyday. Maybe you can gaslight Aussies into accepting a "papers please" Great Firewall but you won't do it to the rest of us.