“Innovation” used to mean better prices and/or better products. Adding adverts to a product you already own isn’t innovation.

• Update (now)
• Later
• “No” option missing

Samsung not understanding consent - if they can’t say “no” that doesn’t make it okay.

If you don’t like us changing the terms AFTER the sale then stop using “your” fridge.

No you may not remove it, that’s a DMCA violation!

Was hoping we’d stop all that after the Queen died. Doesn’t feel the same saying “King”.

A “suspicion of malicious communications” in the land of the free, how could that be, I didn’t speak out because it didn’t affect me.

Microsoft is so wealthy they could do that, and would even support such legislation if it could hinder their competitors such as smaller Linux distributions.

Thanks, I wanted to say that but I couldn’t figure out how to spell it.

Given Reddit’s past unreasonableness, I wouldn’t be surprised if this otherwise reasonable explanation has an alternative motive.

When I ask car people about that they say (basically) “no, it won’t fit”.

Personally I think it is cool to not give money to anti-consumer companies, which I assume all car companies have become by now if they all have computers. Certainly they cannot forever resist the temptation to use the power they have over users when they control the software running on our hardware.

Is it hypocrisy to be for EULA enforcement on reading when it’s machines, but not when it’s humans? Crawlers “read” on a massive scale that doesn’t compare to humans.

deleted by creator

No u

I estimate that won’t do much.

Nothing stopped someone writing a bogus paper claiming an MMR vaccine causes autism. It being a paper likely gave it undue credit to people who were convinced by it, not that they read it…

I’m not writing a paper or essay… so my standards are different.

Conversely I’ve tried following a paper to implement an algorithm and suddenly found it used math terms that I couldn’t find an explanation for (and unlike the rest of the paper it didn’t elaborate shit).

That sounds like a generic issue one should expect. I wouldn’t consider this a specific party’s talking point until they suggest a solution that isn’t just better reasoning, better logic, better evidence.

How often?

The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.

The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA’s unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.

“Promoting homosexuality” was illegal in state schools for half my childhood. Imagine the ignorant, hateful people arguing against same-sex sexual education - they would probably say “YOU want to show PORN to CHILDREN” too. It’s a bad-faith character assassination that shouldn’t have merit.

I doubt the concept of anonymised data. Companies and governments have bad incentives to know who you are, and collect data from brokers to make correlations and educated guesses.