I completely agree with your sentiment, but what societal problem isn't currently being made worse by political polarization and misinformation on Facebook?
Take your pick: genocide[1], climate change denialism[2], anti-democratic efforts[3], public health misinformation [4], just to name a few.
The distinction lies in whether the service provider has rendered themselves a "publisher" under 230. The protection has historically been broadly interpreted but, in theory, Facebook could lose the protection if it chose, selectively, what content to promote or remove in violation of its own public TOS. Generally:
> Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks.
When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (of which privacy is one), the onus is on the government to justify this action. We cannot just assume surveillance works, the government has to prove it--show us the examples. Luckily we know just how effective these programs are and, as the authors here correctly point out, the answer is "not much." [1]
From the link in the article, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014,
> Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. [1]
EDIT: As to the question of 'what's at stake with privacy rights?', there are great films [2], talks [3], and reading [4] on what's at stake with privacy.
>The public learned about the NSA’s “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs, which involve [...] warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications on a massive scale.
The US executive branch engineered an automated, massive breach of the constitutional rights of US citizens and the rights of people abroad.
> The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records had produced “little unique value”[.]
These programs have yielded almost no positive results in actually increasing security, which was their stated purpose. How much does this cost? What do we get in return? What is the chilling effect on society?
>The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance.
Mass surveillance programs have been adapted to routine policing matters and have served to dramatically enhance existing biases in policing against marginalized communities. Over 75% of warrantless searches conducted by US police under the auspices of the Patriot Act were for drug related offenses [1].
And the key question would be: is there any statistically significant report of safety or efficacy problems in any peer reviewed study or even reported through VARES?
Nothing was omitted from my statement. They have been authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization, not the full approval process because, if we waited for full approval, we would have no vaccines at all because full approval can take well over a year.
In any case, the Pfizer vaccine is expected to be fully approved within days.
Healthcare workers in many U.S. states are required to have vaccines for a variety of infections, including hepatitis, influenza, MM&R, etc., as a condition of their presence (and employment) in healthcare facilities. [1] Social and financial penalties for refusal to accept vaccines are not a novel situation for healthcare professionals.
The only difference with COVID is that 375,000 people died last year in the U.S. because of it. It is a pandemic. There are three vaccines that have been granted authorization by the FDA for COVID that have also been shown in preliminary studies to be safe and efficacious.[2]
Further, why would the hypothetical doctor, whose "natural immunity is more protective than current, non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines" additionally need the "upcoming nasal vaccine with sterilizing immunity"?
> a civil court can act against you without giving you representation, without allowing you to have representation, without you present, in secret from the public, and even without notifying you
While there is no right to be afforded free legal representation in civil court in most US jurisdictions (some do) and a civil court can render rulings and judgments against parties who are not represented by counsel, a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest.
A civil court can render a ruling against a party if the party is not present, but it will typically go to great lengths to ensure that notice is given to parties before doing so (pleadings served to last address by process server, notice published, etc.). There are typically strict requirements that have to be met before civil court can render a ruling or judgment without a party present, especially where there is no indication that the party has received notice first.
A lot of anecdotes about drastic judgments and rulings being handed down by civil courts happen when parties ignore notice of the proceedings. There are a lot of rules for handling cases in civil court and they are grounded in the constitutional right to due process. Notice and due process are taken really seriously in most US jurisdictions. Federal Courts are especially strict about following the rules.
> Nineteen of the warmest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the warmest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Do you see benefit corporations as being a natural fit for LTSE? If so, would LTSE ever require companies be organized as b-corps as a condition of listing on LTSE?
>We literally have to invent stories of "Russian hacking" and "Russian interference" to try and conjure up some parity.
Which of these stores, specifically, were invented?
State-sponsored "hacking" and "interference" (by any definition of those terms) on the part of the Russian government are as frequent as they are well-documented.
This is an accurate description of limited liability. It does not blanketly shield corporations from liability, only shareholders (and there are exceptions to this as well).
In fact, in Florida--as well as many other jurisdictions in the US--there is a special category of torts that cover liability for ultrahazarous activities and apply strict liability. There are cases that have specifically dealt with the impoundment of large quantities of water.
Bunyak v. Clyde J. Yancey & Sons Dairy, Inc., 438 So.2d 891 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1983).
Cities Service Co. v. State, 312 So.2d 799 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1975).[1]
Note the facts the latter case, Cities, dealt with:
>The appellant, Cities Service Company (Cities Service), operates a phosphate rock mine in Polk County. On December 3, 1971, a dam break occurred in one of Cities Service's settling ponds. As a result, approximately one billion gallons of phosphate slimes contained therein escaped into Whidden Creek and thence into the Peace River, thereby killing countless numbers of fish and inflicting other damage.
>Appellee, The State of Florida (State), filed suit against Cities Service seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the dam break.
It is absolutely true that the way that corporations have escaped liability for these activities is to "socialize losses" as an OP has aptly stated. In this situation, the prior owner went bankrupt and handed this major liablity to the state to maintain for years and when it breaks, the state (possibly federal) taxpayers and the environment will bear the loss.
>A National Labor Review Board (NLRB) investigation has now found that Amazon illegally interrogated and threatened Jonathan Bailey, a lead organizer of the Queens Amazon walkouts, and has issued a federal complaint against Amazon, according to official NLRB documents...
>The case was settled before it went to trial, but the issuing of the complaint means that an NLRB investigation found Amazon broke the law.[1]
Perhaps we could look at another:
>Last month, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint in Bowden’s case, meaning the agency found merit in her allegations that Amazon threatened, suspended, and ultimately terminated her because she had been talking with coworkers at an Amazon warehouse in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, about pay and other workplace issues, which is a legally protected activity.[2]
Then of course, there is the article that is the subject of this post. Call it speculation, but a corporate astroturfing campaign is not a convincing indication Amazon is on the right side of morality, law, or the facts here.
Writing off legitimate complaints about working conditions at Amazon–which are, in fact, widespread–as "outrage of internet leftism" is dismissive and plain incorrect. [1]
By what definition of "free market" is unionization fairly characterized as "messing with" said market? Isn't the idea of the free market that actors within that market have the opportunity to use resources and organize resources the way they see fit? It seems your definition of "free market" only permits corporations latitude in making meaningful choices, but employees and consumers none whatsoever.
Unfortunately, it seems increasingly apparent that it is. It is especially common in clinical research to gather troves of data "anonymize" it, and release it publicly. I'm very curious how patient data can really be meaningfully anonymized if health conditions or treatments are combined with geographic data.
Recent history suggests we haven't really come up with effective, objective standards to truly anonymize health data. Certainly, this is not what most patients have in mind when they seek care.
>The health-care systems are financing the company, with each owning an equal share, Myerson said. He declined to say how much funding the company has received...Eventually, the company will sell access to the data. Pharmaceutical companies designing clinical trials or looking for information about side effects of medications would pay to access the data, Myerson said. For others, like student researchers, “we would want to find a way to make that happen,” he said.
>“I cannot break the trust with my patients that their information will be used for any nefarious purposes,” said Compton-Phillips, from Providence. “This is absolutely not Cambridge Analytica.”
Bottom line, if you have to assure the public that a scheme to sell patient health data on the open market is "not Cambridge Analytica", you may have a problem.
Iranians who use Signal are Iranians. Your statement is premised on the Iranian government having absolute authority to surveil the communications of Iranian citizens. By that logic, any from of end-to-end encrypted communication is treason. You might as well say that Iranian citizens have no general right to privacy and any expectation of such is also treason.
I completely agree with your sentiment, but what societal problem isn't currently being made worse by political polarization and misinformation on Facebook?
Take your pick: genocide[1], climate change denialism[2], anti-democratic efforts[3], public health misinformation [4], just to name a few.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-...
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/06/faceb...
[4] https://www.fastcompany.com/90657622/as-the-delta-variant-sp...