A campaign calls on governments not to require internet infrastructure companies to censor people's communications.

Please don't call communications and publications "content". That term disparages all of them as mere filler to keep a container full of something or other.

I find it disturbing that Facebook is criticized for labeling the statement "Men are trash" as "hateful". Of course it is hateful — it blatantly expresses misandry, just as "Women are trash" would express misogyny. Both statements carry hate, similar kinds of hate, in a similar way, differing only in which target is hated.

The crucial point is that neither of those statements should be banned or censored. I might rebuke a person for saying either of them, but to forcibly limit people to saying only nice things (or to show hate only towards those we revile) is intolerable.

Despite that minor inconsistency, this campaign stands for freedom.

Random innocent events, seen through the filter of confirmation bias, enabled US military personnel to convince themselves that NGO aid worker Zemari Ahmadi, traveling around Kabul on errands, was carrying explosives for PISSI. So they fired a Hellfire missile at the car he had borrowed from the NGO.

In just a few minutes, analysts figured out that the missile had killed noncombatants, and within hours, that it had killed children (who were certainly noncombatants). Nonetheless, the US military continued pretending to be absolutely sure that it had attacked a PISSI fighter and only fighters had been killed.

The US military did admit, in a week or so, that Ahmadi and the other people killed were all noncombatants, not enemies at all. That was a big advance compared with the standard US practice before that, which was to deny stubbornly that a drone strike killed noncombatants, disregarding all evidence that it did.

One federal appeals court ruled that the policy of banning bump stocks stretched the law too far. I think this applies only to the states in that one circuit: Texas and some nearby states.

In sensible times, the US would amend that law, but I expect the anti-gun-control fanatics controlling the House of Representatives will not allow that.

Great Salt Lake could disappear in 5 years at the current rate of shrinkage. Conservationists say Utah needs to adopt policies to take less water from the lake.

The article says that the region is overdrawing the available water. At some point it will hit a hard stop and have to cease much of its economic activity. However, it doesn't explain what harm will come directly from the emptiness of the lake itself.

Tories set up policies that tended to unjustly harm people who lawfully came to Britain without any special papers in the past. but had no papers to prove it. Tories dragged their feet in ending these policies and compensating victims. Now they plan to throw the whole matter away.