> The Chinese room argument says otherwise, and it behooves us as homo sapiens to pay attention. I'm not sure what this sentence means. > > How many individua

> The Chinese room argument says otherwise, and it behooves us as homo sapiens to pay attention. I'm not sure what this sentence means. > > How many individual reporters at the NYT wanted to give support the Iraq war? And yet that's what the entity itself ended up doing, using their contributions. I'm sure that individual NYT reporters disagreed with support for the Iraq War; but as a protected association, they are free to determine how they settle internal disagreements however they see fit. Every organization, group, corporation, and association has their set of internal rules, and the Constitution protects those associations specifically as it relates to speech and expression. > Hence pointing to Equifax, which explicitly promulgates constraints on our individual behavior, and yet has escaped all sort of democratic accountability. Not sure how Equifax is relevant. First of all, it isn't in the business of publishing speech; that's what we're talking about here. If Equifax wrote a blog post about how it should be free from legislation, it is well within its rights to do that. Second of all, if you're talking about Equifax's business practices, the user has no control over whether they interact with Equifax or not — THAT is the problem with Equifax. That's simply not true for Fox News or CNN or The New York Times where there's a direct relationship between seller and buyer. I'm not sure what Equifax has to do with any of this...