thisGuyFlicks

I'm not sure your question has enough context. But yes, not allowing the most illogically angry people (defined by me as the lowest common denominator in this Context) to start wars (aka crime and violence) over their hurt feelings is most definitely a way to defend democracy.

Who said anything about "manipulation"? Do you know that influence is not tantamount to manipulation? Do you know that many of your own behaviors are most likely subsidized by government and therefore you are being economically influenced (or in your perspective "manipulated")? Have you ever heard of a Sin Tax? Have you ever realized that Expansionary Policy is often put into place in order to influence (your perspective is "Manipulate"). I would encourage you to learn a little about economics before trying to hypothesize why and what makes people go to war.

Why do you go directly to the extreme implementation? No one said anything about "enforcement". There are ways to push society towards a better paradigm without enforcement. We also shouldn't let the lowest common denominator have a say in the direction of society. People that "would go to war" over the fact that they should eat less red meat are not exactly of sound mind.

And starting a meta conversation about that here is going to help? No of course it's not - not at all. It's just more noise.

Did you try clicking into the article? If you would have, you would've seen the published date and saved us all this unneeded comment thread.

> In particular, simply receiving a particular iMessage – without opening it or interacting with it in any way – can allow an iPhone to be compromised, with personal data exposed.

So does this mean it is wise to turn off iMessage so that all messages come through as text message?

All of us that pay taxes. All of us that would get higher insurance premiums (if he got away with it) as a result of his stunt.

You really think anyone in the royal family has ever done anything because "it would be the right thing to do"?

> Also I prefer my food coming from megacorps clean rooms.

Those clean rooms exist because of government regulations - not because of the existence of megacorps.

What's empirical about that though?

> Leaving aside why someone is still using RSS in 2023

Gen Z? Or just not familiar with the technology? Protocols don't die just because the newer generation doesn't understand them.

Agreed. This reads as an advertisement for why the middle-class just needs to acquiesce to the wealthy ruling class because they know what's best for us better than we do.

Did running away from those you disagree with solve all your problems? What happens when you disagree with officials in your state? Run away again? Does everyone and everything have to acquiesce to your understanding of the world? Do you think moving to live amongst those you agree with, while casting those that live elsewhere as "others" is a trend that will work out well for society in the long-term?

hmm, I'm not sure I understand this. Can you give an example?