Trump has led a large fraction of Americans to dare to show their misogyny and sexism. It will be hard work to defeat that.

Like most pro-Clinton articles, this article presumes implicitly that the only possible cause of disapproval for her is a prejudice such as misogyny.

Not in my case. I am happy to vote for a woman for president. In fact, I voted for Jill Stein this week -- for the second time.

I don't vote for Hillary Clinton, for the same reasons I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1996: they are not progressive. They support business-supremacy treaties. Ms Clinton doesn't intend to try very hard to avoid global heating disaster, and she kowtows to the banksters just as Obama does. Basically, she would give us four more years of Obama, only more warlike.

Google quietly combined its ad-tracking profiles with its browsing profiles.

A defendant testified that Chris Christie personally approved the "traffic study" that was apparently designed to cause traffic jams for Fort Lee.

Since Zuckerberg personally decides when to make exceptions to Facebook censorship rules, he is functioning as the editor of the site.

Is it fair to condemn Facebook for being inflexible about its rules, then condemn it for being flexible? That would appear inconsistent, but both criticisms are valid. How can that be? Because the real wrong is the underlying wrong: Facebook has gained for itself too much power over world-wide publishing. There is no way to wield that power without doing harm. It is the size and power of Facebook that convert its general policies, and its specific decisions, to become in effect censorship.

We must take away Facebook's power.

The Pentagon made phony al-Qa'ida videos that subtly made al-Qa'ida look bad, and that reported who looked at them. Copies were left on CDs in houses in Iraq.

The US did very bad things in Iraq, such as invading it and strewing radioactive fallout everywhere, but just because this was done by the US doesn't make it wrong. It seems legitimate to me.