with JS, people who are opting-out should blame themselves
No, I'm going to continue to blame that subset of JS coders who consume far too much of my CPU/memory resources. Thanks to them, I got to watch my browser slow to a crawl and become so unresponsive that it was difficult to even close the tab containing the offending site. The simplest solution is to have JS off by default. A whitelist system is nice for non-offending sites (I've never had this sort of trouble with JS on, say, HN).
1. Reviewing everything submitted by users is unreasonable to expect.
2. People are upset that takedown notices are issued for works to which the issuer does not hold copyright and that those who issue such notices do so with impunity.
If they're going to take up scarce public resources (i.e. RF spectrum), then the public has a legitimate concern in ensuring such resources are used in a way that benefits the public.
So sales produces a prospectus that suggests this is a bad investment. Then they continue agreeing to package and promote these securities. Were there some information excluded from the prospectus which suggested to the sales force that they were actually a good investment, I might still be able to see them as honest. Otherwise, this sounds like an attempt to apply the Nuremberg defense where remaining in the situation of having immoral rules to follow was voluntary.
I'm a stats-heavy computer scientist, but I'd argue the opposite: the ability to construct and evaluate a rigorous argument is the first thing lacking: one that plausibly analyzes the domain, recounts opposing arguments reasonably fairly, constructs counterarguments that are actually responsive to the opponents' arguments, and uses logical argumentation along with empirical evidence in a way that correctly supports its points.
This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."
From what I've heard, it's combination of time restrictions for reviewing a patent and penalizing rejections that later get overturned when the applicant appeals the decision.
On the other hand shadow work is exactly what empowers people: 1. Automation allows to DIY tasks that previously were too expensive to acquire in the market in exchange of a bit of your time.
Quite the opposite: this is all the dull, menial stuff that distracts people from their primary tasks. These are jobs that were "supposed to" get automated out of existence and didn't. The store has not automated the bagging of your groceries. This only frees up an employee by having you do it instead.
If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors of his creation because they have to cover the same costs he does. It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.
Nor does he seem aware of inflation (see his "grandparents" paragraph at the end). The site below suggets $7k in 1950 would be about the same as $65k today, and I would hope people aren't amazed at the notion of being able to live on $65k per year.
From what I've heard from them, I think "better safeguards against regulatory capture" would cover a lot of it, though I have yet to hear that term specifically.
If you think Zuckerberg is evil and that we're all just going to try to screw you, there's nothing I (or anyone else) can tell you that is going to change your mind.
Nothing you can say, perhaps, but here's something Facebook can do: establish a years-long history of having new privacy options/controls default to the setting which reveals the least information to other users. Doing that for several years should help Facebook overcome their reputation for not doing so (a reputation which it has for a reason).