No, I'm going to continue to blame that subset of JS coders who consume far too much of my CPU/memory resources. Thanks to them, I got to watch my browser slow to a crawl and become so unresponsive that it was difficult to even close the tab containing the offending site. The simplest solution is to have JS off by default. A whitelist system is nice for non-offending sites (I've never had this sort of trouble with JS on, say, HN).

2. People are upset that takedown notices are issued for works to which the issuer does not hold copyright and that those who issue such notices do so with impunity.

This makes your earlier claim of never having seen most of the concepts rather dubious.

This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."

Quite the opposite: this is all the dull, menial stuff that distracts people from their primary tasks. These are jobs that were "supposed to" get automated out of existence and didn't. The store has not automated the bagging of your groceries. This only frees up an employee by having you do it instead.

Of course not. We just want to encourage them to do so.

Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.

That's the agreement between this society and creators who publish their creations.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Nothing you can say, perhaps, but here's something Facebook can do: establish a years-long history of having new privacy options/controls default to the setting which reveals the least information to other users. Doing that for several years should help Facebook overcome their reputation for not doing so (a reputation which it has for a reason).

Directly trading one luxury for another doesn't help when what you need is a way to feed yourself, pay the rent, heat the house, etc.