Comcast, which profits from an effective monopoly on internet subscriptions in Colorado City, spent $200,000 to campaign to stop the city from even considering the possibility.

The city needed to have a referendum to begin considering the issue because of a Colorado law purchased by the main ISPs. This is an instance of how business corrupts our governments at every level.

Americans, when you see an expensive ad campaign for any political question, I suggest you suspect that the ad campaign advocates a course of surrender to business — so, if you're not an expert, vote against the ad campaign.

During the past 1500 years, natural climate changes caused social upheaval. We are on the path to cause heating bigger than any of those natural changes.

The effects will endanger everyone — even wealthy regions can encounter devastation it cannot cope with.

A rational allocation of funds to the climate danger would be to put almost all the funds into curbing the greenhouse gas level. (This in addition to cutting off all subsidies to fossil fuels.) When a region is devastated in a way that is likely to repeat in a few years, we need to move the population elsewhere rather than rebuild in place.

This gives us the best chance of avoiding global disaster, and that must be our priority.

1000 immigrants who were given permission to work, under DACA, rallied in Washington for renewal of that program.

One aspect of the fake news phenomenon is that people circulate articles on "social media" as a way of showing allegiance to an identity. Whether the article is likely to be true and correct is a secondary matter.

The difference between what they do on "social media" and what I do on stallman.org is that I'm not trying to win approval by demonstrating adherence to an identity. Also, I have some heuristics for avoiding false claims — not perfect, but they help.

What the author says "we" do nowadays does not apply to me, and I hope you know better than to act like that. I post about the things I want to tell people. What I wish to keep private, I don't post about.

It is too bad the article falls into the confused conceptual habits of referring to publications as "content" and to reading them as "consumption". I think people think using those terms makes them sophisticated. But that doesn't make the point invalid.

One UK MP has accused another of "inappropriate behavior", and the article gives us enough detail to see exactly what "inappropriate" means.

It means sending her a letter, once in a while, asking to go out with her. There was no pressure in them, as I see it. On the other hand, some might say that the high frequency of his letters — five in a mere 20 years — constituted pressure.

The vague word "inappropriate" makes it easy to put people in the wrong for asking for a date. We must reject vague accusations like that.

Aside from being a direct injustice to specific men, and sowing fear among many more, this distortion also wrongs the many women who have experienced rape, groping, or threats and pressure for sex. Surely most of those complaints are valid. Exaggerations like this one will undermine the response to those valid complaints.

By contrast, what he is accused of doing to another woman, rubbing his crotch against her, went too far. You mustn't do that to people who have not given a direct invitation.