YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

How would you regulate the training---what if you fail the training that's required to be part of a well-regulated militia? If the right to bear arms would be only contingent to being part of a militia, would the failure void your right to bear arms? (serious question)

I quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices said there was no such right enshrined in the 2nd amendment. Thus there are people who are learned in the law who disagree with your position. Is it really hard for you to imagine that well educated, knowledgeable people can come to a different conclusion than you on what the 2nd amendment means?

I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim that when I read that amendment it seems to give the government broad powers of regulation over gun ownership.

As I’ve said through these posts, fight for your rights. Be vigilant. We are on opposite sides but open debate and discussion is good for a democracy. Maybe my view will prevail in the coming decades. Maybe not. Societies evolve and views change. Only by people of like mind to you being willing to advocate for your rights will my position be prevented from becoming normative.

When asking you to "post something more substantial and thoughtful when you do. You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections.", I'm asking you to do more than repeat "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line." to start out. From what I gather, your complaints with respect to Apple and privacy center around the source code not being open and you'd like them to provide more choice. Those are reasonable and understandable positions. I'm not trying to build a straw man here, so please correct me if I'm misreading you. When you start a conversation with only "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line", that's indistinguishable from trolling, when you can easily sum up your issues there as well and encourage a substantive conversation.

From that, you make an absolute claim that "Apple cares about privacy" is a lie. I think a more accurate description is "Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to." The latter is a perfectly valid, understandable opinion. The former is not. Apple has sunk substantial resources into privacy; you may feel that the Secure Enclave isn't really, because it's not open, but it's wrong to deny that they've put money into developing it. That's an example of putting their money where their mouth is. Likewise refusing to assist the FBI in unlocking their phones. That cost them money (if only in legal fees), and raised the ire of some in law enforcement and the government.

You can point to decisions Apple has made to operate in China, and reasonable people can disagree about their decision there. It's fair to also hold other companies to the same criteria when doing so. It'd also be helpful to point to examples of what you think are good examples of privacy.

You also mention "I do agree that they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy, but that is a super low bar. Just because they are "the best", doesn't mean they are good at it." Can things be better? Sure. If you care about privacy and "agree they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy", do you use Apple devices? Not since the first iPhone, you say. Then, why not? Are you working to improve security on other platforms? It's understandable if you're not: security is tough, and I don't necessarily expect everyone to contribute to open source. Are you evangelizing for those platforms? That sounds like something you could be doing, along with making reasonable arguments about issues you see with Apple.

Similarly "they could build their systems so that I don't have to go through Apple to use their app". Are you referring to the App Store? Getting software updates through Apple? As for other software, as far as I know, there are alternatives you can use. If you've got specific examples, please do provide them. Again, people can reasonably disagree about these. For a counterpoint, by controlling the marketplace, Apple has more control over quality and security, as well as the responsibility when something goes wrong. One can reasonably argue that they prefer this over letting anyone provide apps because they're concerned about malware being loaded, that other providers won't be paying as close attention. You may reasonably disagree that that's the best way to handle it.

On the other side, Apple doesn't have an business model where they make money from user data: they make money through hardware. The way they've had a hard time providing a good ad platform is an example of this: if they were really interested in selling Apple customers to advertisers, they would have figured this out. A customer benefit of this is that Apple can take privacy seriously: they don't have a motivation to make user data accessible. The other big player here, Google, is in the business of advertising. That's very much not to my liking, but I don't go around commenting only "Google doesn't care about privacy": I know the discussion is more nuanced that that, and to do otherwise is just encouraging flamewar.

All of this comes down to "Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to". Perfectly reasonable. The absolute "Apple doesn't care about privacy", not so much.

> it's not really something you go - "yeah let's kill people for fun today"

I never said people kill for fun. When mass shooting happens, using gun feels normal. Because they have been using that weapon (gun) like it's supposed to (shooting practices and hunting) for a long time.

Thank you.