I dunno. I know a couple of assholes who are completely aware that they're assholes. They take pride in it, even. But if they're "insane", then "sane" has no meaning. They're not crazy, they're just assholes.
You can certainly give up rights by contract. You do it all the time! The contract can't be "unconscionable", so there is a limit to what you can give up, but privacy is certainly well within that limit.
"Not exactly sure why, but the polling numbers indicate it's true."
Except that they don't. His polling numbers have been falling. They are exceptionally low for a major party candidate at this stage in the campaign, and look to continue to fall, at least in the near term.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that this started happening as a more general population started listening to him speak.
"But, using social media then proudly claiming you don't use it when you want to socialise? That just seems strange."
I see what you're saying, but I think it's not so strange. While I used to have a Facebook account, I canceled it precisely because I never used it to socialize.
But I know a lot of people who who do just this. They have a Facebook account just to track announcements from those friends and family who only communicate through Facebook -- but they never actually post anything themselves.
I think this is an attempt at a "middle road" by people who really don't want to be using Facebook at all, but feel forced to by those who use Facebook exclusively.
"it's just interesting to me when people literally say they don't use social media to socialise."
There are substantial segments of the population that don't use social sites at all. I'm one of them. I socialize online, all right, but I do so through email and, to a lesser extent, comment sections like I'm doing now.
Most of my friends and colleagues have Facebook accounts, but none of them do social engagement exclusively through Facebook.
On the surface, your three parts all seem unworkable to me, but perhaps there are missing details that changes that. I'm genuinely curious, though: how in the world is anyone going to judge the "maturity" or "sincerity" of comments?
The most natural and logical place to discuss a story is where the story actually exists. You're absolutely right, people can (and will) go elsewhere to talk about stuff, but it seems pretty obvious that is something that is worse for both the commenters and the website.
Speaking personally, the single thing that a website can have that makes it more likely that I'll go there every day is a vibrant comment section on the site itself. Without such a section, there is no community. Without community, there is no reason to frequent the site unless there is a specific story I'm interested in.
"Donald Trump is misunderstood" is not even close to an adequate explanation, even if it is true.
The words a President speaks mean a lot more, and are analyzed a lot harder, than those spoken by others. Misunderstandings can cause major problems, including wars.
The ability to make yourself clear is an essential skill for being President, and when Trump repeatedly shows that (at best) he cannot seem to accomplish even that, he shows that he has no business in the office.
It doesn't matter what he wants. What matters is what is in the best interest of the public.
There is an extremely good reason why the police are not supposed to be the ones that determine guilt or innocence, nor are they the ones who are supposed to decide who gets punished for what, and what sort of punishment it will be.
The police are supposed to investigate crime and bring suspects into court, not to assassinate people, no matter how awful those people may be.
Yes, it would -- but that wouldn't necessarily have an impact on the brewery's use of the name. Trademarks are industry-specific.
If I have a trademark on, say, the name of a publication that does not preclude a company in a completely different business from registering the name as their trademark as well. (That's the legal baseline, but in practice there are a number of gotchas that make can make this a bit sticky.)
As an example, remember the trademark dispute between Apple Records and Apple Computers? Apple Computers won and were able to keep using the name because they weren't in the music production business (at the time! After the iPod was released, Apple Computers and Apple Records reached an arrangement).