For me at least, that opinion came from a time when the internet wasn’t dominated by corporations, and giant coordinated misinformation campaigns weren’t a problem.

When the main actors on the internet were individuals, I agree, government interference would limit their freedom.

But as it is now, corporations determine who gets access to information, how it gets filtered, which voices get amplified and which get silenced.

One of the only effective ways we’ve seen in recent years to force corporations to do the right thing, and restore some freedom for individuals, is by government regulation.

That’s why I’ve changed my mind on that.

They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad, they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.

Therefore yes, it becomes ok in my book to violate copyright (which does not equate to stealing, the owner hasn’t lost the original).

As soon as I can have a choice of service that has virtually all of the content (like you do with music, or groceries), and I can pick the storefront based on its usability and cost rather than its catalogue, piracy numbers will go right down. Because it becomes less of a hassle to get it legally rather than pirate.

Slack already does allow your admin to view all of your conversations, which is more alarming to me

I’m a slack admin for my company, and I can tell you that no: admins can’t read DMs or private channels they’re not a part of

In that same vein: mini motorways and stacklands

They’re WIMPs though…