In my experience, #3 tends to factor in the most for civil cases. I would also say that people need to remember that for civil cases, the intent of a lawsuit is to receive just compensation for / rectify a wrong. Looking at the court system as the last step in a long process of trying to resolve the dispute helps people understand why so many cases are settled before court.
Discussion between parties
(Sometimes) formal arbitration
Pre-court settlement discussions
Court case
Given the length of the process, the uncertainty of a trial, and the expense... it often makes more sense to settle if one can.
There was a better article somewhere that detailed what they thought was the dishonesty around Brave's claim that they respect robots.txt. Even so, this isn't to do with the browser. There are interesting copyright questions here, but it doesn't have anything to do with privacy per se.
People conflate "ban bad actions" and "ban speech" when discussing tolerance; separating those is important. We should ABSOLUTELY ban violence and refuse to acknowledge laws and systems that advocate for those things. We should be both vocal and active in our rejections.
Speech is a separate issue. As stupid as antivaxxers are, as hateful as TERFs are, I don't want government telling them they can't speak. Any law we pass, we should ask ourselves how it might be abused by a bad actor. Better, at least to me, is to out and ruin anyone who expresses hateful, bigoted views.
Oh no no no, it's to HELP them you see. They're just MISGUIDED! /s
Yeah, any time someone says "for the children" or "because of terrorists / criminals" I immediately think "what fuckery are you trying to fob off on us now?"
Given the fact that Signal is E2EE, "full access" would mean "full access to encrypted data without the keys to unencrypt it," which is why E2EE is important in the first place. Were Signal compromised, US representatives would not resurrect the EARN IT Act year after year in an attempt to make E2EE illegal.
No one had provided a shred of evidence that Signal has been compromised. And given that they're more willing to pull out of a country entirely v. compromising user data, I'd call them a pretty safe bet.
That would be the concern. The "for the children" argument is often how governments open the door; after they establish a precedent (disposables are bad) they can start scaling up to other aspects using the same argument.
"Children are buying vape stuff in pretty colors!" "Children like the pretty vapor!" Etc.
Except they DID have enough information as this entire conversation is taking place under a "UK is considering banning disposable vapes" thread. The "well actually" is strong in this one.
No, you were intentionally ignoring the obvious context to score internet points. Either you knew the context and ignored it to be a jerk, or you honestly misinterpreted the context and tripled down when you realized you were wrong.
This has always been an interesting point for me. If I buy a secondhand Tesla, I've signed none of the agreements made between the initial buyer and Tesla. I wonder if I could disconnect it and hack the interface to unlock the disabled features that don't require network access, or spoof the authorization for some of those?
