It’s not clear how the spyware gets onto the phone, though. Typically the user needs to download something that happens to have spyware in it. Unless the USA government includes this spyware in heretofore legitimate government apps so that a significant number of people install the spyware unintentionally, I don’t see how this spyware is of practical value. Including it in government apps might be their plan, though, even though there is a high chance that the malicious app(s) would be banned. But the USA government could threaten Apple or Google into letting the app remain available for download. Dark times.

Definitely! Always vote, even if you have low confidence in the election’s integrity or your influence on the overall outcome. You have nothing to lose by voting anyway.

I second this, and add that if you have an area of expertise, you will have more impact if you utilize that expertise. Some examples:

• If you have access to a commercial kitchen during off hours, you could cook food for the poor.
• If you are good at socializing, try meeting with local political groups, influencing election candidates, or running for office.
• If you are a software engineer, volunteer on an open-source project related to a cause that you care about.

And if you don’t want to spend effort, you can always donate to a cause.

Now I’m even more confused lol. What’s the motive for media companies to promote candidates who pass laws that require age verification on websites such as porn sites? Are porn websites causing media companies to lose revenue or something?

There’s no conspiracy of collusion between parties. Any party is free to put forward candidates who favor popular policies. And if that candidates wins, but doesn’t fulfill their promises, then the voters will remember that.

It is in the best interests of the parties to put forward candidates and policies who will have voter appeal, in order to prevail over competing parties.

The USA is not a healthy democracy.

Sometimes policy issues arise after an election cycle, in which case the voters didn’t have an opportunity to vote for or against the candidates based on their position on the policy issue. Was that the case with age verification in the UK?

In a healthy democracy, future elections decide the fate of these policies, which can be reverted. Even the USA’s complete prohibition on recreational alcohol, which was popular with voters at the time, and codified into the constitution itself, later became unpopular with voters, and was repealed. So as long as the democracy remains healthy, there is always an opportunity for bad policies to be repealed.

I’m glad that you’re happy with it, but you couldn’t pay me to use a Xiaomi product.

The countries under discussion are democratic republics, aren’t they? If so, then age verification is what the people voted for, not an insidious plot by “they”.