If Twitter really cared about the "lies and hateful rhetoric" they would have put their money where their mouth is and banned him years ago. It's just a meaningless gesture to drum up more drama, more clicks, more views.
> they're no longer platforms and instead publishers, who can be sued for their content
They could and have been sued all along. Plenty of people file inane lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and Google all the time for content that gets posted on their services. I wouldn't be quick to imply that these lawsuits would result in successful outcomes for the plaintiffs would it not have been for the existence of Section 230.
> Unless you have some hard data, your argument doesn't seem very convincing.
Seeing as plenty of people are earning more with the federal unemployment compensation than they would if they were working full time, I'm not sure what exactly is "unconvincing" about it.
That's the point, the "rock" stars aren't making any money in the industry like other pop acts anymore - they're mostly doing their own thing on Patreon and streaming on Twitch.
If they're recording music, they can certainly still use Logic to do it, and Apple wants to give them reasons to keep doing so. It's hard not to notice that Apple has been courting YouTubers really heavily over the last few years.
Look at someone like Billie Eilish and her Apple Music-exlusive content. Obviously not literally "rock", but becoming a global star is still very much a thing.
In this Rolling Stone video she and her brother walk through how they made "Bad Guy," I don't know audio software enough to know if this is Logic but I'm sure a Logic users would recognize it in some of the shots if so:
Lennon, Tesla, and JFK were deeply flawed human beings living in a different time, with far less media coverage than today. I suspect your view of the past may be unfairly rosy due to the effects of time.
Billie Eilish is simply the current incarnation of the "breathy misfit 'poet' girl singer" that comes around over and over and over and over. And then disappears.
I hope she makes an enormous amount of money while she's popular and has a smart enough brain to bank it for when she is not.
How is it in any way cheaper. I mean yes, if you ship people to middle america it will be. But touting a "right" to housing in SF is preposterous, at $1000 / sq ft (and will only go up with more demand).
Right now, nothing. If you build enough shelter space, by law, you no longer can make these decisions. If there is enough shelter space to house the homeless population, the choices become go to the shelter or go to jail. This is why we need to build more shelters as soon as possible.
Oh no, the horror!