many advertising companies have argued it would undermine their industry.
Yes.
“Absent this data, smaller enterprises will lose a critical path to reach and attract new customers
They seemed to get along just fine for centuries without it.
"[...] and consumers overall will have less exposure to new products and services that may interest them,” a group of ad trade bodies wrote in a letter first reported by Adweek.
They say that like it's a bad thing.
I will be availing myself of this law just as soon as the website is up.
The technical term is "puffery", which the FTC defines as "exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."
UI elements that expand and cover up other UI elements when you mouse over them.
"Flat" color schemes where you can't even tell where one UI element ends and the other begins.
Insisting on using custom widgets (buttons, etc.) instead of the system-provided ones. It doesn't matter which platform you're on, I guarantee the system-provided widgets are better at being widgets.
Congress isn't covered by whistle-blower protection laws, and such laws generally only protect disclosure to the proper authorities rather than to the public. This also ignores the case when the "proper authorities" may be the very people being reported on.
I'm still interested in knowing what actual harms you're alleging the speech and debate clause causes. You pointed to lying, but that's generally legal anyway and not really enabled by the S&D clause.
Yes. Pretty typical Pentagon and presidential behaviour that should come to no surprise to anyone who’s paying attention.
...exposed by a Senator reading classified documents into the Congressional record, thus entering them into the public record and being immune from prosecution.
Also, that's not how Americans spell "behavior" ;)
