No, an externality is an impact you create that isn't a part of your business model. It can be positive or negative. Most of the time people talk about negative externalities these days, especially with airlines, they're talking about profiting from climate change. (Although I don't know that Ryanair is worse than anyone else.)
> This is a very privileged and perhaps even ignorant view to take.
I'll spare myself the obvious retort. Not everyone has the privilege of starting an armed revolution and succeed, or simply survive. Not everyone who does is guaranteed to be in the right (for example the US states that tried to secede). And the outcome can be complete destruction for yourself, for your city and your region, and hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions displaced and homeless- many of whom couldn't care less about your "revolution".
Do I condemn armed resistance? No. Of course not, sometimes it is inevitable. But the idea that you should distribute firearms to people just in case somebody one day decides he's fed up and wants to start shooting other people for freedom, or for white supremacy, or- why not- for a religious caliphate- that is ridiculous.
This post is a good example of why SEO is such a joke. Worse than a joke, actually, because it's actively harmful.
If your search algorithm is penalizing Examine.com, that's a bug in your algorithm. It's not up to websites to jump through Google's hoops. Authors only ought to be concerned with authoring good content.
I signed up to a crypto exchange, then I requested removal of my account and data and they said they cannot delete my data. Guess what? I had zero transactions, the account was new, etc. They are legally obliged to keep almost nothing for 7 years. How lovely. At least they were open about it, right? Some will just tell you they deleted your account when in fact it was just a soft delete. Screw these places. I, for one, hope that Bisq will become popular.
I agree with you! Protesters in North Koreans and Hong Kongers, too. Nobody needs to help them break the law, they should just build their own infrastructure.
> The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the First Amendment, among other offenses, and Gabbard is seeking $50 million plus assurances that Google will refrain from “censoring or restricting” the account.
Isn't it common rhetoric that Google _can't_ violate the First Amendment, being a private company? They have the ability to arbitrarily close or censor any account they choose. Politicians don't get special treatment, especially while saying it's fair for Google to close accounts belonging to people whom they personally find objectionable.
