It's clear that Russia is moving in the same direction of China, ban and erase all data or video, audio uploads that criticise the government or even make space for a wide range of diverse voices from protestors or just small minority groups whose opinions and right to free speech might not be in line with official government policy Since big tech company's have millions of users they are a prime target for government censors and they have the money to pay large fines

Most Americans have a pretty favorable view of Russian citizens and culture. It's the dictators for life and abuses of civil liberty we take issue with. We want to see a better life for all human beings that doesn't involve jackboots on necks, it's got nothing to do with wanting to "see Russia destroyed."

Personally, though, I do get irritated with straw men, fake outrage, and false dichotomy when it's trotted out to justify the actions of tyrants in pursuit of tyranny.

It's hard to imagine that anyone believes that America's primary goal for 75 years has been to see Russia destroyed.

Maybe you should try reading some non-native history books

Sorry, the primary goal is not to destroy Russia. It's just a world domination, and destroying Russia is just a top task on the list of achieving and maintaining world domination, not a primary goal. And given the later rise of China, destroying Russia may even drop to place 2 of the US task list.

You get the right to say I own this image, jpeg , your ownership is listed on a block chain, it s ridiculous since anyone can copy the image and download it since I can get a cd music disc and copy it and rip it there's no record of who buys music cds in a store It makes no sense to me in that it's just a line of code on a block chain But then digital games earn far more than people buying games on physical discs epic is earning billions selling emotes dance skins etc in fortnite If I buy a weapon skin in call of duty vanguard what use will it be to me in 4 years time when my console no longer works and I no longer play call of duty I can't display it or use it or sell it to anyone and its of no use outside the Xbox live network In theory if you buy a nft you could sell it to someone in a few years like people pay 1000s for an old game company's will probably set up a platform if you buy an image from ubisoft for example of some icon weapon etc you can sell it to anyone whether they play that game or not Yes it's good for digital artists but it's really bad for the environment as it takes megawatts of energy to make nfts and keep the blockchain updated equivalent to say burning or using barrels if oil

But we are in a surreal world or a digital gold rush, If you say we are on the block chain selling nfts digital currency blah blah etc you, ll get interest from investors your stock might go up . news headlines on tech websites The potential return could be great and how much does it cost to make digital images put em on a private block chain etc not much A nft is simply an image jpeg etc with a digital record signature recorded on a block chain digital database that can be inspected is tamper proof as it's verified on many different computers, The mystery is why pay 1000s of dollars for a nft If you want to support an artist use patreon or pay a subscription or send them money or buy their merch

You could buy weapon skins emotes costumes 5 years ago in games without the need to use blockkchain Your items are linked to your steam psn or Xbox live username Gaming company's already have databases of all the games and items you buy online

Courts have ruled betamax Vcrs were legal, its legal to record tv shows and movies to watch them at a later date. Even though in theory Vcrs could be used for the purposes of piracy. Just because a device might be used to pirate content does not mean its can be banned. Like bittorrent is used by many non profits to distribute Open source software like Linux distro iso, s

What does it matter if I watch a song on YouTube or just dl the video. Mp4 and watch it, The riaa might say the reasons the videos are on YouTube is they promote the artist like old videos on MTV and someone gets paid ad revenue , In theory someone could just use a pc dl 1000s of videos put em on a pc and avoid watching ads Also video streams count to get a song in the charts and the riaa employs lawyers so they have to do something to justify their wages even if it will have no effect on the music marketplace or the behavior of the average music fan

Google allows sideloading apps, I can go to a website, download an app without going near the play store. Apple does not allow apps to be installed without going to The official app store

Apple does not have a monopoly in the tablet market, There's lots of android tablets and also Microsoft sells tablets. 90 per cent of phones sold are android phones as they are cheaper, than any apple phone Apple allows Netflix and Spotify apps on their store Without taking a 30 per cent cut. The problem is if an app has in app subscriptions or the app is not free apple gets a 30 per cent cut Google has similar rules to the apple store, It seems the rules are not Always consistent, on the apple store. Big company's like Spotify or netflix are not treated as strictly as a small developer with a few apps on the apple store. Apple is being investigated by the EU, to see If the app store policy's are reducing competition and innovation eg it makes its own music And TV apps which compete with Spotify and or video apps In the store. Only apple can use the iPhone nfc chip to pay for goods in stores Maybe we would have more completion in apps if there Were more mobile platforms, Other than android and apple Ios So it's up to the regulators to make sure that consumers and devs are not overcharged or innovation is blocked by 2 company's who control the Mobile app marketplace

There's only smartphone platforms, apple and android.neither is perfect. Google drops apps and services it it does not have millions of users or it does not make a profit eg Google reader I use android I can sideload apps on my phone. Google does not seem to copy popular apps like apple does Apple is unlikely to provide an option to pay via PayPal or some credit card unless its forced to by Congress, like the EU forced Microsoft to provide a browser ballot Eg choose Firefox , chrome etc instead of Internet explorer years ago before Windows 10 was released Companys realise more and more products will be bought online using apps, if you can get people used to using apple pay or Google payment services you have an almost unlimited source of income. Even if apple is forced to allow apps to be paid with Other finance options like mastercard will they be easy to use will they have access to the api that apple uses for contact less payment We have seen before in tech the public tends to use the most easy to use app or services, it's easy to just put in your credit card into the apple app once and just buy any app or service with a few clicks without thinking about it The law is slow to catch up with tech. 10 tears ago people did not expect consumers to be Able to buy products and services using a smartphone app. Apple was the first company to offer an easy to use app to buy music or TV shows on a mobile device. The first music apps on phones were limited and hard to use