"You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider," Adams said. "Folks who don't know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus," he added.

https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pe...

I'm in the staffing industry and deal with automatic resume parsing tools. They have no problem with text PDFs that are saved from the source.

The US government will be able to engage in as many coups as they want and Google and Facebook will help make sure nobody ever knows.

People who have admitted publicly to engaging in a misinformation campaign are now considered to be the authorities against which dissenting views will be judged misinformation.

They intentionally engaged in a misinformation campaign. And now they are considered the authority against which any other opinion will be judged misinformation.

So we have government health experts publicly saying they engaged in misinformation. But they are the experts against which every other opinion is to be judged as misinformation.

1: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...

Those paying customers are already incredibly unlikely to be spammers. They cannot be handled the same way free accounts are.

A slave will appeal to society because society has the power. But if the society does not listen to the appeals of the slave, we can still judge that the slave is correct and the society is wrong. And that judgement is not arbitrary.

Unless society doesn't recognize your right to believe differently, no?

The is-ought problem does not rule out the existence of normative facts. It simply states that they can't be proven by positive facts. You seem to be trying to rule out the existence of normative facts by appealing to positive facts.

If you are willing to recognize that society has had an incorrect view of rights in the past, you must recognize that there is a standard beyond society to appeal to.

https://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net...

https://www.linux.com/news/why-linuxs-biggest-ever-kernel-re...

All peaceful human interaction falls outside of that.

If I bought a system that I am technically able to install anything I want onto, I don't think courts should enforce a EULA that forbids me from doing so.

But that doesn't mean I think the courts should forbid the manufacturer from implementing technical controls to stop unapproved software from being installed.

Those are two very different things, and the courts should treat them differently.

For one, there are consumers who buy iOS devices explicitly because they are hardened against unapproved software. Comparing the amount of malware on Android with what is on iOS proves that this is not an irrational decision.

I don't choose to buy a device like that, but I don't want courts saying that companies are not legally allowed to make such devices.

When government provides a service that people don't want, that service can continue indefinitely, especially if the few who benefit can contribute back to the politicians who keep it going. Lockheed Martin and Boeing can contribute to some politicians to make sure that wars continue and they reap back way more than they contributed from the taxpayer who's only option is to vote between two pro-war candidates. Those jobs making bombs for Saudi Arabia to drop on Yemen don't contribute to society, they are a determent to society, yet they continue without end because nobody loses on that investment as long as the taxpayer can be forced to pay for it.

If you are saying an excess supply of credit leads to financial crises, I agree with you. But the federal reserve that intentionally pumps money into the big banks to make credit easy is a far bigger contributor.

I agree that Milton Friedman had his flaws, one of which is this very topic, he never properly connected the federal reserve, money expansion and easy credit to economic instability.