IIRC Apple already allows the device owner to bypass this feature if they prove who they are. So, let a third party do this work a 30 day delay during which Apple attempts to contact the previous owner.
So, for a smaller business refusing a smaller group of people, it's not such a big deal, but what happenes when very large businesses start refusing service to very large groups of people? Say google stats refusing service to everyone working for a company litigating against them? What about MasterCard? Amazon? What if the owner of Pepsi insists that everyone who sells their product not serve certain people?
Musk being forced to testify to congress could be entertaining and satisfying, however a subpoena would, violate the first amendment if not in practice, in principal.
So, while we all know that these moderation actions were probably just pettyness. I'm willing to bet that like most journalists, these ones have covered several different countries critically. How long before someone makes a list of every article each of these journalists wrote about China and Saudi Arabia? It won't matter much if they're are other correlations between their coverage, it can still be made to look very telling.
According to them, it’s a Good Thing™ for old media to be destroyed, because that forces consumers to buy new media in its place
Do they think brave new world was a manual?
Spending is better than mending
Spending is better than mending
"DNA collection at the time of arrest may make sense in certain cases."
In the examples provided, a delay to obtain a warrant would probably not cause a problem. This isn't a blood alcohol test which would be time sensitive. So while it may "make sense", if you to protect people from unnecessary searches, requiring a warrant seems entirely reasonable.
Netflix, this you? @netflix. Replying to. @netflix. Love is sharing a password.
IIRC Apple already allows the device owner to bypass this feature if they prove who they are. So, let a third party do this work a 30 day delay during which Apple attempts to contact the previous owner.
No good explanation
Either they knew and hid it, or they didn't know when they should have known.
This kind of behaviour could get ugly
So, for a smaller business refusing a smaller group of people, it's not such a big deal, but what happenes when very large businesses start refusing service to very large groups of people? Say google stats refusing service to everyone working for a company litigating against them? What about MasterCard? Amazon? What if the owner of Pepsi insists that everyone who sells their product not serve certain people?
Musk being forced to testify to congress could be entertaining and satisfying, however a subpoena would, violate the first amendment if not in practice, in principal.
So, while we all know that these moderation actions were probably just pettyness. I'm willing to bet that like most journalists, these ones have covered several different countries critically. How long before someone makes a list of every article each of these journalists wrote about China and Saudi Arabia? It won't matter much if they're are other correlations between their coverage, it can still be made to look very telling.
It should be noted that other private jet reporting accounts were banned a notable amount of time AFTER @elonjet was banned.
K9 often refers specifically to a police dog.
Netflix in 2017: Love is sharing a password. Netflix in 2022: Sharing a password is piracy.