EpiphanyMachine

The only reason they spend that on advertising is because of their ROI. The people funding the super pacs aren't just giving their money away without some kind of return.

The difference between the two is one I can choose to avoid, the other is affecting who chooses my rights and laws with less focus on the people affected by those decisions and more on the affect to those funding their campaigns.

I wish they never bought screenhero and effectively killed it. The version of it in the slack app is less featured and significantly less preformant.

> Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

I agree with your position, but it's not just Dems. This is the main point of my comment also, this should be done with legislation.

You are totally right, updating my comment! It was removed by the FCC but should be added back by Congress.

Yes, and it's interesting some of those states have an AG sueing for a policy the House Representatives won't support.

I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law.

> The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.

> Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population.

A referral code is required to sign up. Agreed with other commenters this doesn't seem above board and likely violates the publications terms.

I would love to see a service like this. I used Google contributor for a while and have look into others. Blendle is one that sells articles vs full access I occasionally use now.

I can confirm this. It is an item for $0.01 with free shipping. Once you add it to your cart and go to checkout it adds $10 in shipping fees.

I got a generic response from support about sellers setting their own prices. I do not know if the "concern team" will actually look into this or get back to me but my question is being sent to them.

I will no longer be using 1-click ordering until I know this issue is resolved.

This seems at best a very bad bug / loophole for sellers to exploit or at worst a deceptive scam to steal from people. I hope Amazon takes this seriously and fixes it.

They are not blocking purchasing of these from all accounts, just credit accounts. You can still purchase via ACH and debit. What they are doing is not allowing you to use their money to buy:

>The move doesn’t affect debit cards, according to Betty Riess, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender.

>Allowing purchases of cryptocurrencies can create big headaches for card lenders, which can be left on the hook if a borrower bets wrong and can’t repay. There’s also the risk that thieves will abuse cards that were purloined or based on stolen identities, turning them into crypto hoards. Banks also are required by regulators to monitor customer transactions for signs of money laundering -- which isn’t as easy once dollars are converted into digital coins.

Yes they are helping.

Is the government really asking for all those visitor logs?

"Yes, they definitely are," says Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Mark Rumold. EFF advocates for Internet privacy and free speech, and has advised DreamHost in its case.

Rumold tells NPR that when DreamHost first approached EFF about responding to the warrant, he guessed "that DOJ would realize how broad the warrant was, and say, oh you know, in fact we're not actually looking for IP logs for everyone who's ever visited the site" and would narrow its request accordingly.

But instead, the government insisted on DreamHost's compliance with the warrant as written.

That seems like a broad generalization, especially seeing as how this article was about a small town.