a law that has no purpose other than to create a massive chilling effect in classrooms
An uneducated society is an easily manipulated society. If I'm a morally bankrupt (or worse!) politician of course I want to do anything possible to eliminate critical thinking and replace it with faith based thinking. That creates a society much easier to manipulate and control.
Murdoch was never against anti-trust regulation. He was (and is) against anything that prevents him from having "all the monies". If antitrust regulation stops him from having giant bags of money then he is against that. If competitors stop him from having giant bags of money then he is against his competitors.
This is not hard to understand.
FYI gamers generally don't view free to play as a good thing. With few exceptions it's viewed as a bad thing. Free to play games are frequently designed as cash grabs, where the game puts nearly impossible levels of grind in front of you and then sells you the ability to bypass the grind.
This isn't to say you can't do free to play well, Path of Exile is an example of free to play that is mostly done right. But it is to say that it's so infrequently done well that the target community views it as a flaw not a feature.
Ranked choice voting was on the MA ballot this year and it got shot down in flames big time. I have to admit I'm somewhat at a loss as to why aside from perhaps the intelligence level of the average American voter who perhaps found it too confusing.
"the era was known for a widespread disregard of civil rights,corrupt selective enforcement such that there was little difference between gangster and lawman"
How is this any different from now?
I assume that your question is purely rhetorical because you already know the answer.
And elected official's job is to get re-elected. Solving large scale problems often requires complex, nuanced solutions, and frequently comes with some sort of cost that someone will perceive as negative. Fulfilling your job requirements of getting re-elected doesn't actually require you to solve problems, in fact actually solving them will probably piss some people off so it's actually detrimental to your employment. Instead you just have to make people think you are solving problems. So the theater is far more important than the action. And if you can lash out at the platform whose users put a damper on one of your rally's, hey, that's a win-win.
Also keep in mind that a secondary career objective for an elected official is to ensure a soft landing spot in the private sector if/when you finally leave office. So if any of your theater can benefit someone that might be a future employer that's great too.
And frequently ego comes into play as well. You want to make sure that you are always the most important person in the room (as long as you can do so while getting re-elected). This is particularly important with our current president, who I suspect prioritizes ego masturbation over re-election (and anything else).
Speaking as an American, it seems that it would make far more sense for TikTok to divest itself of it's American operations than to sell.
Unless of course they can sucker Microsoft into drastically over-paying. MS will of course not get TikTok and will screw it up horribly (see Skype), so at some level this is a chance to pocket a pile of American dollars and then start working on TikTok's replacement.
It has been my experience that every criminal act in the history of mankind has been committed by a living individual. Clearly the problem is living, if we just kill every human on the planet the problem is solved. No more crime. Simple.
As someone I know always says:
"99% of cops give the rest a bad name"
I've come to the conclusion that his estimated percentage is too low.
Citations needed. I've seen precious little in the way of accountability.
As a friend constantly points out when he links police brutality articles on FB, "99% of cops give the rest a bad name". If anything I think his percentage is too low. The majority that condone this behavior through their silence and inaction are more of a problem than those that exhibit the behavior.
I suspect that this has been true for longer than any of us have been alive. The only difference now is that those in power have discovered that they can be much more blatant about it and still get away with it.
I'm not someone normally to favor any large corporation but this is extortion, and then again, I don't favor governments either.
If I were on the Google's board my recommendation would be to go totally nuclear, immediately terminate all google services to French ip's, delist all French sites from all of search worldwide, immediately terminate all jobs in France (if any), and tell the French government to go fuck itself.
"can someone at Gilead or the FDA explain how the fuck COVID-19 should qualify?"
Because not doing so would make them guilty of the capital crime of denying a corporation all the monies.
While I agree the child exhibited some very poor judgement, you'll be totally ok when the kid's dad and several friends show up with AK-47's and hose down Jesus Mesa, Jr. and any border patrol agents that happen to be with him right?
Because "don't murder a child if you don't want a Darwin Award".
By this logic it would be perfectly acceptable for Mexicans to murder border patrol agents as long as they die in the USA.
Armed Americans who have been documented to murder Mexicans should be enough to present a clear and present danger for the Mexicans to open fire, right?