chuckee

32 ms·

1. 271.▲
   by chuckee 5y ago

   > our personal devices should be inviolate unless there is a suspicion of crime, and even then a court order should be involved. Even with a court order, your devices should not cooperate with a search, unless instructed to do so by yo
2. 272.▲
   by chuckee 5y ago

   Will this be applied to self-driving taxis as well, once we have them? Will we have less right to protest unless we can afford to own, instead of rent? This is a gray area even when it's a private company deciding how their services ma
3. 273.▲
   by chuckee 5y ago

   While the article is easy to believe, I'd prefer it was phrased more precisely. For example: > news publishers known for putting out misinformation got six times the amount of likes, shares, and interactions on the platform as did t
4. 274.▲
   by chuckee 5y ago

   That they do it doesn't make it right, or not dangerous to free societies.
5. 275.▲
   by chuckee 5y ago

   And if a phone company doesn't want to carry your calls, or a bank give you an account? Or if the largest ink and paper manufacturers collude to deny your newspaper the resources needed for printing? If the delivery unions refuse to de
6. 276.▲
   by chuckee 5y ago

   That's because the maker of a drug is expected to know more about it than doctors. And when that maker conceals information about it with the deliberate aim of causing overprescription, we are justified in blaming them far more than th