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

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns.

Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this:

> The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press?

Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution:

> In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit?

Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'.

Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion.

Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.

Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.

I don't feel like anticipating arguments is very helpful, as much as it just adds noise. I could anticipate that someone will argue that because the sun is round, it proves that Apple can do no wrong, yet I don't bring that up, because until someone does, it seems to me to be a waste of time. In short, I am trying to be succinct rather than waste everyone's time arguing over something that nobody wants to argue about.

I don't view "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line" to be trolling, though I do admit I could phrase it better. Possibly "We don't know how much Apple cares about privacy, but they have taken a lot of actions that suspiciously point to them not caring about it more than they care about their bottom line. They also refuse to take actions that would prove to us that they do take privacy seriously.".

In trying to be succinct, it seems that I lost a lot of the important nuance, which I agree is important.

I would like to point to tech-giants that are pushing good security/privacy, but unfortunately, I don't know of any. I think the best I can point to might be Librem, but they don't have a functioning phone AFAIK.

> 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.

I get this concern, but until they let go of that control, they are not enforcing reasonable privacy. It's a trade-off, and it's totally Apple's decision to make, but that means that they aren't doing "privacy right" if they choose the option that disregards privacy. Maybe that's better for their users, maybe not, but they have chosen the side that disregards privacy either way.

> On the other side, Apple doesn't have an business model where they make money from user data

That you know of. Unless you know something that I don't, you don't have access to see where all of their money is coming from. I agree it provides them a better incentive, but incentives don't mean anything.

I don't like comparing Apple to Google, because I find it irrelevant what Apple does. Google is an entirely different business. I dislike Google, and I believe that in many ways they are worse than Apple, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

"Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to" doesn't accurately represent what my issue is. My issue is that the statement "At least Apple seems to care about privacy" is true, but the statement "Apple cares about privacy" is not true based on the decisions they make. They may care about it but their actions speak otherwise, and it doesn't matter what groups say, it matters what they do. Just because they "seem" to care about privacy doesn't mean that they do, and I don't want unaware users to support a company that, based on their actions, is likely lying to them.

You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views change over time. The words don't change but how people view and understand the meaning of those words change. This is not disputable or revelatory.

The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.