TWeaK

Well that's just the futility of banning boycotts. Unless someone actually says they're boycotting, you'd have almost no way of proving that they were.

Well that's the thing, sexual discrimination isn't really protected in the US outside of employment.

The US has:

• 14th Amendment, which states the law must apply to everyone equally (so gay people can get married)
• The Civil Rights Act, which contains various Titles:
  • Title II, which prevents businesses in hospitality or operating across state lines from discriminating over race, color, religion, or national origin
  • Title VI, which prohibits businesses working for the federal government from discriminating over race, color, or national origin
  • Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

I'm actually in 2 minds about whether the 1st Amendment would prevent this. One the one hand, there is a clear gap in the Federal law that State law should be able to fill. On the other, that gap was exactly the same thing as the gay cake baker successfully challenged against.

But it isn't, and it fits in line with the Civil Rights Act Title VI which prohibits businesses that work for the federal government from discriminating against certain classes. This is the same law, but at the state level. Speech is not curtailed unless you choose the option that requires curtailment.

Like I say, the business is free to not take state contracts then refuse business to whoever they like (just like the gay cake baker did), but if they want to work for the state they have to follow state rules.

Not necessarily, businesses would be free to not do business so long as they're not also contracted with the state. This refers to businesses contracted with the state, so it's more like the terms of their contract rather than an explicit rights issue.

Paywal

This is honestly surprising. How can the courts rule that Google has a monopoly but Apple does not? Android phones actually allow side loading apps outside of the app store.

That's exactly what they're trying to do, the point I'm making is it won't hold up to any scrutiny. You need at least some sort of positive action from the other party to construe agreeing to new terms. Contracts are always two way agreements, in spite of how many consumer facing businesses would like you to believe they dictate the terms.

Exactly. There's a world of difference between "You must agree to the terms to continue use of the service", displaying the new terms before a user can continue, and just saying "If you don't reply within 30 days we're changing the terms of the contract without your input".

IANAL, but I think they should be in a far weaker position with their whole "if you don't object within 30 days we will consider you to have accepted". They can't really argue that no positive action from the other party is construed as acceptance of a new contract. If there was continued use of the service that would be different, but no action cannot reasonably be construed as acceptance.

How is it a scam?

There was a Darknet Diaries episode on this: https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/64/

TL;DW Post-9/11 the NSA/CIA were like "let us help you with your cyber security while you host this global sporting event" and after the Olympics they pinky sweared to switch it off but the US spies dug deep (presumably with the cooperation of the Greek government, yet in contrevention of Greek law) and turned it back on the very next day, and there was this one guy who worked for the main telecom company and basically knew everything (he was most likely the one who installed the exploit across the network) and then he mysteriously died.

I dunno, I still think there's a valid point to it. Previous presidents increased the amount of genocide, they continued and added to previous actions, Biden has done things to decrease it.

Like, if you were to plot genocide on a logarithmic scale, the slope would be lesser under Biden.

Like, if inflation has been really high, but then becomes a bit less high.

It's objectively better. Still definitely not good, but not as bad as before, but also still not getting better quickly enough.