We've now long reached the point where we can give the market a free hand/carte blanche in pharma matters. Now it's time for Government to act and to do so urgently.

If ethics ever played a role in pharma—which I doubt [remember thalidomide]—then it certainly does not do so now. As health and lives of its citizens are at stake then it's the responsibility of Government to rectify this situation.

After all, the first responsibility of government is to protect the security and well-being of its citizens. If it fails to do so here then it's abrogating its responsibility.

It's entirely possible the banning had nothing to do with NewPipe. No other NewPipe users seem to have had this issue. But of course it's fun to yell at Google.

We know nothing about this person. Isn't it very possible he was actually violating Google's terms in some way?

Cloud coverage is in fact left out of most climatological models (too hard to predict, and they would dominate all other factors).

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS

Entire lives are wrapped up in Google accounts! They're used for administering other accounts, taxes and payroll, subscriptions, keeping in touch with family, photos...

This could easily ruin someone's life.

What the fuck, Google.

We seriously need to break this company up into its constituent pieces. This is beyond unacceptable.

This article reads as alarmism from an actor with interest in projecting FUD. China broadly has the same effective policy as most governments: requiring access to be given when legally demanded. This is already the case and has been the case for a long time. The theoretical legal requirement and the practical reality of enforcement differ, such that everyone is forced to operate in a grey area. Such a situation is normal and expected in China. Should the authorities want something, they come and tell you. Exactly the same as the west.

I’ve always found climate scepticism strange, because of its emphasis on refusing to accept the connection between rising temperatures and CO2. This really seems to be the least defensible position which could be chosen. The “scepticism” is disputing really basic science which has been well understood for a long time, and it’s in that sense that calling it denial is accurate. It would be much more defensible to accept a lower level of climate sensitivity, but dispute the mechanisms which cause higher sensitivity, or possible future positive feedback effects.

China, through its own behavior in situations like these, makes its own market less attractive for companies and investors, though. You'd have to be crazy to see what is going on right now, and go all-in in with the market in China. The arbitrary power of the CPC over market access is a huge liability.

Big companies may still want to do business in China, but they need stronger footholds in other markets to offset the risk.

> “just don’t spend money there” is a bit reductionist and trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states.

You're totally mistaken if you believe that boycotts and the like aren't taken seriously by big companies, especially companies like Apple where the brand is more important than the product. Of course, it all depends on the size of the boycott, but it doesn't have to cost them millions to become a major problem.