When UK "anti-terrorist" thugs questioned French publisher Ernest Moret, supposedly about "terrorism", they asked him questions about his positions in French politics, such as whether he supported President Macron and whether he had protested against Macron's pension delay law.

This catches them red-handed in dishonest use of these special powers, which violate human rights.

It is not enough to drop charges against Moret. The UK must restore its respect for human rights.

The fanatical Christians that is the Texas Republican Party plan to require display of a religious statement in every classroom.

This would directly defy the First Amendment, which bans establishment of religion.

In normal times, we would confidently expect federal courts to quash this — but no one can be sure nowadays.

At least two art-generating online dis-services have banned the word "abortion". One of them directly threatens users who try to generate drawings on that topic. This form of censorship seems to reject many other words, including words for reproductive anatomy and for birth control products.

This form of censorship demonstrates the injustice of SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute). The user simply wants to run a particular program, but that program has never been released, so the only way to run it is to connect to someone else's server which will run it for the user. This is basically similar in injustice to a nonfree program, but worse: the server operator can control who is allowed to use the program (by requiring each user to make an account), snoop on all the data the user provides to the server, and can even demand data from the user for purposes of profiling or subsequent manipulation.

If the same program were released as nonfree software, that would not respect the user's freedom either. For instance, it could contain arbitrary censorship rules. However, unless it has a back door (which is not unheard of), the developer could not remotely add more censorship to a copy that a user has already installed.

Nonfree software and SaaSS are two unjust ways of making a program available for use. The only just way is to release it as free software.

As for the other characteristics of some drawings that disappointed some users for representing stereotypes, or the male gaze, different users might have different preferences about those things. One user might have different preferences on different occasions.

These programs can't think about those preferences, because they are not a form of intelligence and have no understanding of anything, last of all what an image might mean to a human looking at it.

To make such distinctions requires a human artist.

*Fox News and its audience became hooked on lies — now they can’t break the habit.*

Global climate negotiations systematically refuse to consider dangers that are plausible but not yet certain. This leads to underestimating what we should rationally do. They also overestimate the effectiveness of economic systems in acting to reduce danger. That gives plutocrats an excuse to argue against taking firm measures to ensure survival.

The author suggests government launch a lot more studies about "What is the worst that can happen?"

The overall point of the report covered in this article is a proposal for a way to reduce emissions quickly: by taxing the old technologies that produce lots of emissions enough to ensure they are replaced in a few years.