owl_troupe

I completely agree with your sentiment, but what societal problem isn't currently being made worse by political polarization and misinformation on Facebook?

Take your pick: genocide[1], climate change denialism[2], anti-democratic efforts[3], public health misinformation [4], just to name a few.

A broad society that has rendered itself completely nonthreatening to its ruling class?

A place where certain forms free expression can result in imprisonment, torture, or execution? [1]

Mass surveillance serving as the infrastructure of religious, ethnic, and political persecution, including genocide? [2]

When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (of which privacy is one), the onus is on the government to justify this action. We cannot just assume surveillance works, the government has to prove it--show us the examples. Luckily we know just how effective these programs are and, as the authors here correctly point out, the answer is "not much." [1]

From the link in the article, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014,

> Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. [1]

>The public learned about the NSA’s “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs, which involve [...] warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications on a massive scale.

The US executive branch engineered an automated, massive breach of the constitutional rights of US citizens and the rights of people abroad.

> The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records had produced “little unique value”[.]

These programs have yielded almost no positive results in actually increasing security, which was their stated purpose. How much does this cost? What do we get in return? What is the chilling effect on society?

>The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance.

Mass surveillance programs have been adapted to routine policing matters and have served to dramatically enhance existing biases in policing against marginalized communities. Over 75% of warrantless searches conducted by US police under the auspices of the Patriot Act were for drug related offenses [1].

In any case, the Pfizer vaccine is expected to be fully approved within days.

The only difference with COVID is that 375,000 people died last year in the U.S. because of it. It is a pandemic. There are three vaccines that have been granted authorization by the FDA for COVID that have also been shown in preliminary studies to be safe and efficacious.[2]

Further, why would the hypothetical doctor, whose "natural immunity is more protective than current, non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines" additionally need the "upcoming nasal vaccine with sterilizing immunity"?

As far as a company speaking for itself, a corporate representative is often designated to speak for and bind the company in any civil action.

While there is no right to be afforded free legal representation in civil court in most US jurisdictions (some do) and a civil court can render rulings and judgments against parties who are not represented by counsel, a civil court cannot prohibit a party from having legal representation, which is what your comment seems to suggest.

A civil court can render a ruling against a party if the party is not present, but it will typically go to great lengths to ensure that notice is given to parties before doing so (pleadings served to last address by process server, notice published, etc.). There are typically strict requirements that have to be met before civil court can render a ruling or judgment without a party present, especially where there is no indication that the party has received notice first.

A lot of anecdotes about drastic judgments and rulings being handed down by civil courts happen when parties ignore notice of the proceedings. There are a lot of rules for handling cases in civil court and they are grounded in the constitutional right to due process. Notice and due process are taken really seriously in most US jurisdictions. Federal Courts are especially strict about following the rules.