The efficient solution to that problem is governments using a different platform that’s actually neutral. The government has full control over where they host their videos. Using that as a reason to TRY (a likely long and drawn out process) to force Google to change its policies company-wide is silly.

I’m not being disingenuous. I watch videos on a bunch of platforms. It’s easy.

No, not really. Google can’t do anything about my taking my Firefox browser and watching videos from somewhere else. There are countless other video streaming services.

That’s less restrictive than what I said. McDonald’s won’t let you bring tacos in at all, doesn’t just make you wait at the door for 2 minutes, etc.

Edit: and to anyone quibbling with my McDonald’s example saying you can in fact bring tacos in, that was just an illustration. I can find plenty of examples of one establishment not letting people bring food in from somewhere else.

Is it more anti competitive than McDonald’s only selling McDonald’s burgers or preventing you from bringing Taco Bell tacos in from outside?

The current US Federal Trade Commission is quite agressive compared to other FTCs historically.

Correct, the vast majority of people don’t care.

Got a link to a good project of that type? I’ve been thinking about this recently.

The incentive is already there, it’s just prohibited because of zoning and building codes many places. All the government has to do to fix this is stop getting in the way.

That might be one reason why some warned against using it, but I definitely had teachers in middle school and high school that explicitly said not to use it because it could be changed by anyone including people who could be wrong or lying.

In a sense it is a monopoly, just a very narrow one. The first step to identifying a monopoly is identifying the relevant market, and that is quite hard to do, actually.

Yeah. I think what these people mean usually is that the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution, which is true. They heard that somewhere and repeat it. Maybe that West Wing episode where Charlie does a bit about it.

Yes, all ancestral land claims are ultimately at least a little bit silly.

There are lots of good ideas out there, I’ll just add some that are pretty niche:

1. Anything that is legal to do for free is also legal to do for money.
2. All laws must have a justification for them written into something like a preamble. If the justification turns out not to be true, winning something like a basic law suit against the law is all that is needed to have the law struck down. No need to wait for legislators to pass a repeal bill or for a very specific case to make its way to a supreme court.