Well, it mostly just makes products cheaper. Also, sites like amazon can be linked to the current low inflation due it`s ability for users to price guage efficently.

The US should seriously consider decoupling critical services like this from government. It is neither reliable nor necessarily to have the setup you are currently using.

I would terminate my apple dependency in a heart beat.

Is there a large enough presence of "non deplorables" on these sites to worry about unnecessary and unintended polarization due to these purges?

Your use of the phrase "non deplorables" suggests that polarization exists outside those sites.

As someone on the other side of that, I have to agree with your strategy; I'm on the far-left side of Twitter (about as left as it gets) and although my list of blocked words is short (usually to get rid of right-wing posts but liberal ones too sometimes), it's the best I can do without moving to a much smaller platform.

Is posing guilt on an audience a good way to make them agree with you? I honestly want to go the other way in situations like these.

I don't think he was trying to make them feel guilty, rather just pointing to the awkward fact that the situations and people he is talking about are the ones like those in the audience. I haven't read the book but I reckon he talks a lot about Google based on how many times he mentioned monopolies and anticompetitiveness.

He also embedded this tweet:

"The BuzzFeed "pivot" away from podcasts makes sense when you remember that BuzzFeed lives and dies as a business on detailed analytics. Web content has them. Video has them. Podcasts still don't."

In my opionion this is exactly what BuzzFeed lacks and what a lot of podcasts allow.

How is having different regulations for each state the recipe for increased investments? This topic just seem way too politicised.

You could say this about literally any state law.

Well, that's the ISPs' problem now. They're the ones that killed the "unified" federal net neutrality policy, no? Reap what you sow.

F the Telcoms. They wanted to gut it and paid Ajit Pai to make it happen.

This is part of their problem. They get the increased tax/regulation frustration as a minor cost to their goal of cable-ifiying the Internet.

Assuming that cutting work hours per position would allow for more positions. How would this achieve both less unemployment and less carbon emissions? Would you not need to choose one over the other?

Moving to 21-hour week is almost 50% reduction from the current level. But unemployment is not 50%, it's much much lower. I guess it's a matter of degree. If reduction of working hours is radical enough it could reduce both unemployment and emissions.

You can always negotiate, but if you accept an offer I expect you to commit.

Just curious, commit for how long? I have been in situations before, where I have accepted an offer, started a job and was informed 3 months later that the company mis-calculated the budgets/revenues and have to let go a bunch of people. Guess who gets let go first? The people who started the latest.

Doesn't this go both ways? In this day and age in America, there's no loyalty going in either direction, employer or employee.

As a freelancer I feel I should try to commit for at least a year - and I will try to work a bit longer of possible. I believe this looks better on my resume as well.

I think it's hard for most jobs, at least in my space (mobile software) to do much effective work when staying only for -let's say- 3 months at some company.

But mismanagement happens. The example you mention of being let go after just 3 months should be the exception, not the rule. I certainly never experienced something like that. Then again I like to work for big clients, feels to me more guaranteed they will still be in business tomorrow and me getting paid.

Not entirely convinced that others' poor ethics are a justification for your own.

What argument can you possibly make for an ethical burden that amounts to one-sided loyalty? The REASON is would be immoral to have no loyalty to an employer is because it makes the employers loyalty one-sided. If the employer abandons their loyalty towards employees, as all modern employers did throughout the 1980s and have now established as standard business practice, then there is no ethical burden on the employee to remain loyal. In fact, it becomes unethical to be loyal, a betrayal of your family and self for an entity that does not respect you. I am sure there are a great many employers who expect that they should be permitted to acquire dirt cheap labor to build their profits with no consequences. Their desires are irrelevant.

"Make game of that which makes as much of thee."

There is no good reason at for any kind of ethic burden.

Some people steal; some might have even stole something from you. Doesn't mean you have to too, and I doubt most people are held back only by law/punishment.

I don't think you can equate me leaving an employer "early", for some definition of early, to theft. As long as the contract is "at will employment", which majority of American job offers are (sorry for my America centric view), then the contract is AT WILL, in both directions. In my mind there is no ethical, moral or legal lapse.

I never quite understood this concept of loyalty or commitment to a business entity. You might interview the candidate and take it to the final stage with lot of effort but at the end of the day, the candidate is offered the job by the business entity and not personally by the interviewer. I don't see why the relationship should go beyond the applicable law of the land.

Of course, once the candidate joins the company, regular interpersonal concepts between employees that involve loyalty and commitment can be pursued.

Agreed, one-sided loyalty is a foolish activity. I never understood that either.

To all the people mentioning ethics - a company can and will fire people without any reason. I know a couple of people personally who can't sleep not knowing why they were fired. In 30 mins, they were walked out. That's incredibly unethical but for some reason, not giving advanced notice to your employer is considered unethical? Hypocrisy!

Any commitment is only until a better offer comes along. Better is a bit loosely defined as there is a cost of burning the bridge with you by jumping (be that a day after accepting or after 5 years of working there), but at the end of the day there this is a business relationship and the extent of our obligations are only spelled out based on any contract we have signed, and our social obligations only extend to the extent that the cost of violating the social obligation outweighs the benefit. Any employee who doesn't see the other side as doing the same is eventually going to get burned by it.

So we all get to decide how all the resources are spent? I am concerned that the desire to deem certain energy spending as unethical can lead us down a creepy path of authoritarianism.