I’ll pass on taking economic advice from Michael Moore. :)

They didn’t win. As far as I can tell, that is the case that has been winding it’s way through the system for the last 2 1/2 years. There have been hurdles “won” by the drivers (regarding arbitration clauses, class action status, etc.). But they never obtained a final damage award or any type of ruling that they are…

LOL. Except for all the land that constantly gets eroded. Which happens a lot to Volcanic islands (like the Solomons) which are constantly getting created and destroyed.

The drivers made numerous individual decisions to sign up for a system that clearly classified and treated them as contractors. The only reason this case had even the ‘small’ settlement value it did was because Uber rightly fears states (and localities) deciding to flex their power (usually on behalf of taxi medallion…

Don’t be silly. People are often willing to “join” a lawsuit to make a few bucks. The real question is why the drivers were willing to settle for such a small percentage of what they would be due if they were held to be true employees. Likely they realized (1) they aren’t employees and (2) even if a court ignored…

Because they ARE contractors. They don’t simply “make their own schedule” as your employer allows. They decide week to week and day to day whether to work at all. They have zero obligations to drive at any particular place or at a particular time. They also are responsible for their realm of the ‘job’. They maintain…

Your view is very authoritarian - in the exact sense of the word. Ie, anything that one considers wrong/bad/etc. also is something that should be prohibited. I’m perfectly fine with people (even, gasp, corporations) having the freedom to take actions with which I disagree.

You used the word “obligated”. That word has a meaning beyond “good”.

I think it would be a good thing for you should learn the distinction between desirable outcomes and required (obligated) outcomes. I don’t think someone should force (require) you to learn that distinction.

Who is arguing that they are “obligated” to be unbiased. They are perfectly free to suppress whatever opinions they don’t like. They can also then be criticized for such behavior. And, we can argue that it is harmful.

Brave New World.

Two things:

Facebook is suppressing and trying to shape user generated content. It’s bad when traditional media allows it’s coverage to be shaped by politicians (see Ben Rhodes). It is different and potentially more dangerous when Facebook creates a ‘world’ for its users that seems to be made up of their friends, family and…

It’s not simply a matter of getting ‘news’. Facebook is attempting to influence opinions as to what are acceptable views. Many people can be pressured by constantly being hit with only the “proper” (in Facebook’s opinion) information.

Shocked I am.

When they are TINY islands that are subject to ongoing shore erosion it certainly could. They have presumably been shrinking for a long time - the final stages just happen to have been when we were watching.

There is no dispute that sea levels have been rising for 10's of thousands of years. Whether CO2 level increases are accelerating that rise can be debated, but the long term trend existed long before human industrialization. Volcanic islands also have been appearing and disappearing long before humans even walked the…

I didn’t realize fracking was such an old technology. :)

I just think he’s saying that black people are poor and can’t afford the armor and weapons. It’s kinda racist, but Gizmodo attracts all kinds. ;)

LOL at the assumption that Gawker is going to get the facts straight regarding any environmental issue. They are interested in page views and ginning up righteous outrage.