My girlfriend accidentally "Likes" things on Facebook Mobile on a fairly regular basis. Apparently it's quite easy to accidentally click it.
Similarly, I often use another app on her phone and accidentally click advertisements (bringing up the web browser with the advertisement). There's no real incentive for them to improve it, since that's how they get money.
This seems to basically take the method for cat collars, which are designed with breakaway clasps for safety, and uses it on human collars. Definitely a good idea. I'd consider having the breakaway trigger the alarm, too.
"Amazon has included mobile data before in its Kindles, but those were strictly for books"
That is incorrect. I have a Kindle with 3G, and it comes with a web browser that works on 3G. They limit the amount of data you can use web browsing per month, but it has it. And it's free (not this price-per-year stuff). I'll attempt to post here from my Kindle in a few minutes.
There's a particularly good short story section of Larry Niven's "The Draco Tavern" dealing with this sort of thing.
A species genetically engineers a yeast-style organism that will act as a contraceptive. Unfortunately, the yeast causes complete infertility after a few generations. Since the species failed to limit the changes in a contained experimental area, their entire population is wiped out.
This can obviously be extrapolated to the human population. If we experiment with things like trait selection, we could end up wiping ourselves out because of problems we don't foresee. It would be nice if we'd perform our genetic experiments (with ourselves, our food supply, diseases) in a way that they couldn't completely destroy our species.
No, I'm not a luddite. But we shouldn't turn future humans into bananas, just waiting for a well-suited plague to kill us all.
The same argument you're using is an argument used for spying and throttling/capping of internet connections. It's an attempt to get us to turn on each other instead of the corporations screwing us over. Don't take the bait.
I find myself far less likely to vote for national candidates that send direct mail. More-local candidates that send direct mail make more sense, since I wouldn't likely know their positions otherwise.
Cases in point:
I get junk mail from "Romney For President" because I'm registered Republican. I would never vote for him for president (though I voted in the primary). They're wasting their money. They even ask you to put your own postage on donation envelopes so they don't have to pay it. That's led me to consider sending it back empty.
My girlfriend gets junk mail from "Obama For President" because she's registered Democrat. All the direct mail they send her talks up his Obamacare and Immigration policies, the two things she most dislikes that he's done. The junk mail has almost let me convince her to vote third-party in the election.
I don't think these political groups know what they're doing as much as they think.
Once again: seeking to stifle speech online is only likely to give that speech much, much, much more attention.
We really don't have any idea how often the censorship is effective; we generally only hear about the cases where it's successfully protested. I would presume that it's effective a lot of the time, or else the "reputation management" companies that do it would be completely out of business.