I can’t really see a difference.
You may find it terrible, but I actually believe in objective reality. I believe I know good and evil when I see them... and I can do this without access to the supernatural or recourse to religion. I believe in better and worse outcomes for individuals and for societies. I believe some societies are better than others, because I've lived in 34 countries over 20 years and I can make honest comparisons about the pros and cons of each. Nowhere is perfect, but some actually are better -- objectively, if you believe that being expressive and embracing diversity and freedom of thought is a good thing. Personally I think good==complexity and evil==destruction, and so anything that kills life is destroying complexity that the universe demands, so is necessarily a kind of evil.
The Achilles heel of people younger than me is that they think opinions on the internet actually mean something... and the younger they are the less they seem to believe in the objective truth of the world. Call it the corrupting influence of Instagram, I guess. But I think it's due for a major backlash, because no one wants to have their morals dictated to them that way... and the objective world remains. It always remains. True things are true, false are false; evil is hypocrisy, and it's rampant. It is not a subjective, religious pronouncement.. it's a thing that is fucking right there.
2+2=4
Better analytics = better product*.
* for the true customers, i.e. marketing & communication firms, governments, etc.
Is anyone under the impression that they are a customer of a service they don’t pay for?
People would readily identify as a “Twitter user” instead of a “Twitter customer”
You can't fix lawlessness by reporting the violation of law to the lawbreaker.
This is also why police in the USA are out of control. You cannot fix a criminal conspiracy from within the criminal conspiracy.
PS: nations don't exist, they are fictional abstractions. You cannot "hurt a country".
You absolutely can, especially with something as multifaceted as a country.
> nations don't exist, they are fictional abstractions. You cannot "hurt a country".
They do and you can.
You might as well hand a drunk monkey a loaded sub machine gun.
Surely you don’t think changing size has much to do with what makes humans intelligent.
Personally, I think the answer here is a continued and ongoing land tax. Occupying land should come with an expectation you contribute to the common good, because you don't "own" land. It's a shared good, just like air and water, and you should pay for use.
Primary residences should indeed not be subject to an inheritance tax - if they are continued to be used as a primary residence. Providing an ongoing home for a family unit[1] is a societal good, we shouldn't punish it.
[1] Definition of family is a hairy problem for another, longer post.