gian

What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?

XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

The problem they don't see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like "XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president can seize it".

Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.

Tipical case of not looking beyond one's nose

Right. Now go back to live in a cave.

I don't think that the US currently can go back to the times when Kennedy announced that in 10 years they will put a man on the moon, by a long shot.
To have someone in power that give a shit about science, you need a revolution to wipe out the current political class and radically change the mentality of the population.

I would suggest that maybe you should leave SpaceX alone, if you want to still have a space program.

Maybe think about to nationalize healthcare insurance, it seems to be something more usefull

Yet some people are able to not buy shit just because they see it on a site, so maybe not everyone is like you say

It would be nice but I think it is not really possible. Too many difference in the laws I suppose.

A contact lens would gain a lot of situational awareness and mobility.

Seeing what happen to my wife eyes (that use contact lens) when even the smallest dirt gets in her eyes, I would say that in a open combat zone the googles seems to be way more effective.

Maybe the best compromise would something like a simple sunglasses, the same as the glasses that filter the blue light.

They were on IRC before and on a number of other chats systems before that.
They will move as soon as something better will come out, for various definitions of better

You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying.

I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself.
I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help.

So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that.

As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it.

No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference.

But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law.

True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult.

I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day).

You then charge the guilty parents after the offense.

Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ?
Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?

Da ruski, good job pointing out the actual issue and then moving past it like it doesn’t destroy your argument. To your billionaire owners: we will thresh them just like the tsar and his family.

Genius, the problem is not that they are billionaire but that they can legally avoid to pay the taxes. I don't care how much money you do as long as you pay the taxes. Same for them.

And you already can begin to trash them: stop using their products/services.

The freedom from oppression exceeds anyone’s freedom to amass wealth.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

They will pay for their success either by death or taxes and I really dont care which one

Ok, got it. Envy is bad.

So since we can’t count on all parents to properly parent their child, we’ll just infantilize the entire population and treat every single person as a child by default.

Any other solution to suggest aside the two obvious ones to use when the two obvious ones fail ?
Because face it: there are parents that don't properly parent their child and I suppose that we agree that also these child should be protected in some way.

Yeah. Again, I’m familiar with this ‘think of the children!’ line of support for fascism.

And again, I don't think that making sure that a law that already exist in the physical world is held valid also on internet is fascim.
We are not living under a fascism regime even if we are subjected to laws that ban something, be it minor accessing porn material, minors accessing alchool or adults driving while drunk or too fast.

And just as a totally coincidental side effect, the censoring tech will allow the government greater tracking of everyone.

Now, that is something we can talk about trying to solve a problem, how to check these kind of things without tracking or unecessary privacy invasion.

As one Google executive recently explained: “Organizing information is clearly a trillion-dollar opportunity, but a trillion dollars is not cool anymore. What’s cool is a quadrillion dollars.”

Any exec saying remarks like this should be old yellered.

I’m saying this being fully aware of what I just said, and I say it because of what it implies.

It requires massive poverty, massive control, massive casualties, people dying from whatever comes with that level of poverty, just so that a few assholes can brag about a quadrillion dollars.

No, it don't for the simple reason that for them to be in the quadrillion dollars someone should be able to buy/use/rent whatever they do. And they know this even if they don't say it.

We need to start hard capping maximum sizes in companies. No company can employ more than 1000 people. No company can have a net worth of over one billion dollar. When a company goes over the met worth, handle it with taxes. When it reaches the employee max, that’s it, can’t hire no more.

We also need to hard cap personal wealth. Both income and net worth must be taxed in brackets. Nobody should be allowed to own more than 10 million (or whatever is a sane max maybe less, maybe a little bit more)

The lowest of the low pay no taxes, they have no money to do so. Then the next starts with 5, 10, etc. middle class should pay around 30 like in most countries. After that it goes up and up until you reach 100% for income, and whatever % is required to put the person’s net worth back into that 10 million limit.

Instead of these stupid ideas, what about closing all the loopholes that allow these companies to not pay taxes ? It seem simpler and more effective.

BTW, all your ideas would work only in a socialist country where the state control what the people do. When you say

When it reaches the employee max, that’s it, can’t hire no more.

what about a guy that want to do that job but then can't ? He start a new company (but is he able to do so ?) Or the state plan what everyone must do ?

You are simply trading, by hate and ideology, the freedom of few to be billionaire with the freedom of everyone else to do what they want in their life.

True, the current system has a lot of problems, but you don't solve them simply not allowing a company to become too big hoping that this will lead to a multitude of smaller companies.

With this we don’t have a single quadrillion dollar company with a king that will soon enough fail, we’ll have thousands of multi million companies, thousands of owners of which some might fail, others won’t. Tax income will be so much that we can quite easily fund a giant social support system, free healthcare (physical and mental, eyes and teeth), free education, universal income to ensure everyone can live nicely

Nope, you hope so but you have no evidence that it would happen, not even theoretical. And such solution would work only if it is applied world wide, if you apply only to US (or any other country or area like EU) your companies would be crushed from the bigger ones that your laws cannot touch.

Or are you proposing isolationism as the default for every nation in the world ? Are you sure it is a better option ?

NOBODY has the right to be a billionaire, it is not a right, it is not a privilege, it should be forbidden and the very fact that it’s not is a cancer on humanity.

But everybody has the right to try to be one as long as he follow the rules.

So the problem, maybe, is that we should start to ask for laws that force these big companies to follow the rules everyone else play by instead of asking to destroy companies that became that big because the laws are bad.