If you permitted people to email you, we would have explained the issue you were facing immediately, and these "experiments" (and all the barely-coherent emails you keep sending us) would have been unnecessary.
Re: history lessons, history lessons, and more history lessons
I'm well aware of such services (ironically for your comment, by the way, I'm the one who writes our weekly history-of-techdirt posts). But I cannot turn every post into a complete history lesson on 20 years of digital music, and there are some key distinctions that make me quite comfortable in calling this a "first" even if first needs an asterisk (which that word almost always does).
Those were all download services, offering DRM-encumbered audio files. Much of the digital music industry has since transitioned to a streaming-subscription model, and that world has been almost exclusively dominated by "subscribe once listen anywhere" offerings, with the idea being that you are paying for the data stream and a selling point being that you can then access that data stream from any device. In the post-Spotify world, and in the realm of digital streaming subscriptions, a one-device-only offering is as far as I know a first.
Firstly, that comment didn't "make it to the top" (though it did rack up several votes) -- it was an editor's choice, in this case my choice. Perhaps I should explain it:
It's a valid and amusing observation regardless of what you think of the supposed "regressive left", or of the relative thinness-of-skin of people at various points on the political spectrum, or of who should be president, or of various bizarre historical non-sequiturs like the KKK's political alignment a century ago...
Why? Because it is plainly obvious to anyone who is watching that Donald Trump is extremely bad at coping with and responding to criticism. Maybe that's because he has deep personal insecurities (hint: yes) or maybe it's because he is not nearly as good a rhetorician or general communicator as he thinks he is (hint: also yes) or maybe it's because he simply has poor impulse control and rarely thinks anything through before saying it (hint: hat trick!) but even if you like him it's plain as day: the man reacts woefully poorly to both valid and invalid criticism (I'm generously assuming there is such thing as the latter). And that's a terrible quality for a president.
If by "something similar" you mean a matching compilation video, assembled from a variety of clips with no context, curated as the worst-of-the-worst and then edited together along with an emotional piano soundtrack, presented with a specific ideological agenda on a channel dedicated to smearing the other side... well then -- yeah, that's a tough challenge.
People on the left do sometimes put together manipulative propaganda like that certainly, but for the most part they don't have to -- because it doesn't take nearly that much effort to tell the story of the Trump crowd's violence and bigotry.
Vote2016() does not accept arguments. It's a sloppy, poorly-scoped function that just uses two global variables. Accepting third-party parameters will require a significant overhaul of the underlying engine and API.
I don't understand this philosophy some Americans have of "all our people are idiots and you can't possibly expect our politicians to speak intelligently." I mean if that's really the case you should just burn down the whole country now.
At the very worst, you've got a vicious cycle of dumbing down. Substantive debates and intelligent politicians would encourage voters to care about those things, and would eventually come to be expected.
Good advertising is about communicating your product's merits to the public so they can speak for themselves.
And advertising does not just affect the weak-minded - it affects everyone, deeply, including you. If you believe it doesn't, and that only idiots are influenced by it, then you're the most deeply influenced of all!
You may have missed the point. This is like if someone at an oil protest had a "No Pipelines!" sign, and you said "well actually, there *are* pipelines. Instead of denying that, shouldn't we be protesting it?"
Most attempts to censor speech usually winds up giving that suppressed cause a much bigger platform and audience.
I hope you see the inherent flaw in that observation. Speech that gets Streisanded is by definition spread everywhere and seen widely, so of course we get the impression that this happens more often than speech which is successfully censored, which by definition we see very little of.
The truth is, Facebook successfully censors huge amounts of content — spam, infringement, and violation of terms of service and community standards — every day, and the vast majority of that content never gets any bump from the Streisand Effect.