Actually, I've been in the market for a Chromebook for my 13 year old son. He uses Google Docs for schoolwork and the new capability of some Chromebooks to run Android apps means that he could do his "Android gaming" on the same laptop. Best of all, it won't break our tight budget. My current front-runner is the Acer Chromebook R11. (The R13 looks much nicer, but is a lot more money.)
I had my first science fiction novel published this year and, while I love reading books, actually writing and publishing one has been an amazing process. (Now working on Book #2.)
The big sticking point - beyond the price itself - is that the full version is itself an in-app purchase. That means that, should you want to install it on a few different devices, you'll need to buy it each time. To install it on my phone and my kids' tablets (assuming it's released on Android at the same price point) would cost me $30. If I switch phones, I'd need to buy it again. It would be expensive if it was a "one purchase and you have it for all of your devices," but as a "buy it again and again for each device," it's totally not worth the money.
I think the key point is the intent. If it can be proven in a court of law that they sent this animation to the journalist with the intent to trigger an epileptic seizure, then a case for assault can be made. If you sent someone a random flashing GIF and it caused a seizure, you likely wouldn't get tried for assault or, if you did, the case would get thrown out due to lack of intent. However, if you had been harassing this person for weeks saying "I hope you have a seizure" and then started sending all kinds of flashing animations at them, your outlook in court gets grimmer.
Blaming the victim of the crime for the crime being committed? What's next? "Yes, I slipped a date rape drug in her drink, your honor, but what happened next was her fault because she drank the drink."
The evidence that the Holocaust happened is overwhelming. You might as well question whether slavery really existed or whether people from Africa voluntarily came to America, worked on plantations of their own volition, and were actually well-paid for their efforts. It's easy to raise the latter as a "theory", but all historical evidence runs counter to it and the only people who would accept it (or "The Holocaust never actually happened") are racists, neo-nazis and the like.
Disney Crossy Road: Free to play, but you can buy the "Hamm Piggy Bank" to get more coins. I tend not to need it because I just play more often to get more coins.
Marvel Avenger's Academy: Free to play, but they have a premium currency. You can get some via watching ads, but to really be able to afford premium items/characters, you need to spend real money. They've had a lot of "special events" recently which start off fine, but are clearly either "pay to win" or "you must constantly be playing this game and have no life otherwise to win." I just satisfy myself with getting an event character or two without in-app purchases and ignore the premium stuff.
Disney Magical Kingdoms: Same as Marvel Avenger's Academy, but they are more generous with handing out free premium currency for completing various actions/missions. So much so that I've been able to buy quite a few premium characters without needing to spend any actual cash.
If any of these were paid apps (perhaps with a free version to introduce you to the game) without in-app purchases, I'd gladly pay for them. However, I'm not going to pay $10 for each premium character/item.
Good point. My boys love playing games on their tablets (or our old smartphones that are WiFi-only now). If I could buy Super Mario Run for $10 and all of us could use it, then I *might* be able to rationalize it being "only $3.33 per person." Since it's $10 per device (not even per person), it would mean needing to pay for it for my phone, each of my son's tablets, and a pair of old smartphones. (If I wanted the full version on all of our devices.) I could wind up spending $50 on this game. I'd rather just buy a console Mario game and be done with it.
I never said that it should be free, but the vast majority of games are $4.99 or less - with $2-3 seeming to be the sweet spot. Yes. there are the "free" games that inundate you with in-app purchases of various sorts (and sometimes make it so that the game is all but impossible to complete without these purchases) but I much prefer an upfront fee to being nickel and dimed as I'm playing the game.
Had Super Mario Run been $4.99, I'd have considered it (when it was released on Android), but at $10, it just seems too expensive to me.
Besides the fact that the Android version is still "To Be Released At An Unannounced Date", my biggest beef is the price tag. You get the first few levels for free and then need to pay $10 to unlock everything else. I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much. If it were $1.99, I'd buy it the second it was released for Android. At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.
We've had that problem sometimes. Where my wife was home the entire day and when she opens the door (to check, not because of a doorbell ring), she sees a "you weren't at home" note. They don't even bother with the courtesy doorbell ring, just a "tag and leave." We haven't had that happen in awhile, though we have plenty of "drop package on front steps and walk off without ringing the doorbell" incidents. Luckily, Amazon sends us text messages when our packages are delivered or they might sit out there for hours and be prime package theft targets.
(I'd love to see the looks on the thieves faces when they snatch that giant Amazon.com box only to find out it contains a big package of toilet paper!)
Exactly this. Especially if the person is home and the courier leaves the package outside without even trying to ring the doorbell. We've had expensive shipments sitting outside for hours because UPS drivers don't ring the doorbells. Both of our cars are in the driveway, our lights are on, and sounds are coming from our house, but they still toss the package down and walk off. We've called UPS and they said it's their policy for drivers to ring the doorbells, but the drivers don't seem to follow through.
FedEx seems better at this by us, but this might vary depending on your local drivers. They need to enforce this policy better. Yes, it will mean slightly longer times needed for delivery (since "ring doorbell and wait 30 seconds" is longer than "drop package and walk away"), but it's worth it if it reduces package theft.
And if Facebook isn't living up to your expectations, you can stop using it. If Facebook thinks their users will benefit from this fact checking, they'll implement it. If users don't like it, they can complain and hope that Facebook relents or they can flee Facebook and go elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you to stay on Facebook.
For comparison, you are "forced" to accept the US government by virtue of remaining a citizen of the United States of America. You can't simply say "I'm switching to an alternative government" without physically moving out of the country. That gives the US government a much higher degree of control over your life than Facebook has which is why the US government is constrained by the First Amendment.
I wonder if a compromise could be worked out. Have the steering wheel and pedals fold away so that they are completely out of the way. However, if you need them, you could pull them out and use them.
Of course, the real issue is that people won't trust self-driving cars 100% right away (and likely shouldn't). The first models will come with steering wheels and pedals accessible. As self-driving car technology improves, the times when the human driver needs to take over will get fewer and fewer. Eventually, no pedals/steering wheel might make sense, but not right away.
This isn't "20 weeks anytime a parent feels they need time off." This is 20 weeks from the birth of your child. As the parent of two kids, I can tell you that the first three months of a child's life is basically hell on the parents. The new baby has no set schedule and will wake up at all hours of the day or night to be fed, changed, held, etc. The baby might sleep for an hour before waking up for a diaper change and then sleep another half hour before wanting to be fed. Since the parents basically need to be available for their baby 24/7, they wind up extremely sleep deprived.
It's amazing how little sleep you get by on. I've done 3 hours - total, not in one block - and then went into work because I had exhausted my vacation time (no paid paternity leave at the time). Still, the quality of the work being done by a parent with only 3 hours of sleep who stumbled into the office isn't going to be great. Plus, this then burdens the other parent with taking care of the baby 100% - likely the woman who just had a major medical event and is still recovering.
Twenty weeks of parental time off would get the parents comfortably past this point and would let them have some stability in their house before returning to work. As far as others taking up the slack - remember that this isn't going to be all parents taking off twenty weeks every year. It's going to be new parents taking time off to be with their family for the first few months of their baby's life. This would likely be one person out at a time (maybe more in a larger organization like American Express, but likely only one in each department at a time). If the rest of the department can't pick up the slack from one employee being out, then they might need to look into hiring more staff in general. What would happen if that employee had a medical issue and was out on extended leave to recover?
I think this is the key. If you're poor or middle class, you work at whatever will pay the bills. If you enjoy your job, that's a bonus, but you don't always have this luxury. If you were to become rich (and assuming you didn't just squander your newfound wealth away), you might still work but it would be only on stuff you enjoyed doing.
For example, I like my job as a web developer and I recognize that I'm lucky enough to like my job when many other people don't. However, if money were no object, I'd probably hang up my web dev toolkit and commit to writing full time. Unfortunately, said writing doesn't currently pay the bills so I can't just quit my job because I've published a novel and am working on my second one. Whether I'm rich or poor, I wouldn't be sitting around doing nothing. I'd still be working. It's just WHAT I'd be doing that would change.
Clearly, he's extorting money from those of us who can't stand to see bad grammar, Quick! Someone pay him before he misuses their//there/they're or says "my head literally exploded!"
Many credit card companies simply don't care about fraud. If fraudulent charges happen, they reverse the charges (leaving the merchant out the cost of whatever was bought).
My identity was stolen and Capital One let the account get opened despite numerous red flags (starting with an incorrect mother's maiden name ). When I notified them of the fraud, they gave me the runaround and asked if the account was actually opened by my wife without telling me. Then, they stonewalled both me and the police to protect themselves.
Fraud is a minor inconvenience to credit card companies. Fixing the process would take them too much effort so they just deal with fraud as each case pops up.
On Twitter, even if you don't follow a person, they can still send you messages. To give another example I encountered (albeit not one involving "hate speech"), this woman online decided that I was the same person as another guy she had a problem with. Her proof? We both like photography. (She's not all there. She also claims to be a prophet of god and that god talks to her and tells her these things. Obviously, saying "you're mistaken" doesn't work.) She would harass me constantly on Twitter and, eventually, on my blog. I ignored it, but still it was annoying to come back and see a dozen messages from her. I'd block/report her and her account would be taken down, but she'd just start a new one up. (At one point, I and a few other people she was harassing found out that she had set up around a dozen accounts ahead of time for the inevitable account suspension.)
Now, her speech to me wasn't hate speech. (She was accusing me of murder/hacking/doing obscene stuff to kids/etc because god told her.) Still, she could easily have been sending me hate speech instead. Is my option in this situation "just shut down my Twitter account and don't use it anymore"? Is the only option for someone who is being harassed to leave the place where they are being harassed?
As far as deporting illegal immigrants goes, I don't see discussing it and the various policy proposals as being hate speech. It's HOW it's discussed that's the bigger issue. Saying "we should deport those illegal immigrants" is fine. Saying "all [derogatory term for Mexicans] should be rounded up and shot" obviously isn't the same thing. I welcome a rational immigration discussion. Unfortunately, there are many who use the discussion's opening to shout racist rants. This hurts both sides as the left reacts to the racists and the right has their reasonable plans drowned out by hate. (It's one reason why I'm hoping the GOP will fracture so that it can kick out the crazies and reformulate itself as a Reasonable Conservative party. I might be left-of-center, but I want reasonable options out there to keep the Democrats in check.)
Finally, I agree that I wouldn't want to see Twitter, Facebook, etc ban people for spurious reasons. People shouldn't be banned because the CEO of Twitter believes X and someone tried posting a reasonable argument why X is wrong. However, if someone is posting pure hatred and is harassing people, they should be kicked off. That's not fostering communication. That's trying to scare people into silence so the racists/bigots can force their view onto America.
It's only a First Amendment issue if the government is taking the action to limit or suppress your speech. Twitter could ban someone for any reason they like. They could have a ban for cats are better than dogs if they wanted. Nobody's free speech would be violated. Similarly, Slashdot could decide to ban people for any reason they want. This is their site and they get to determine who posts here and who doesn't. To give an offline example, it would be like someone in your house going on a rant. You have the right to ask them to leave. If they don't, you can call the police to eject them by force if necessary. The person being booted from your house has no right to complain that you are infringing on his freedom of speech because it's your house and your rules as to what speech is allowed and what isn't.
On the other hand, If President Trump declared that nobody was allowed to say that he had small hands, then that would be an example of the government infringing on our free speech rights. This would be a government official (or entity in the case of Congress passing a theoretical "Trump Hand Size Protection Act") regulating what we could and could not say.
One last point. Free speech is not absolute. I can't wave a knife at you, shout "I'm going to kill you" and expect to escape the legal system by claiming First Amendment rights. This is where "hate speech" originates. From people trying to make threats to people (based on their race, religion, etc) and then claim that it was just free speech. I'll admit that it's gotten expanded and overused to the point that many people laugh at the mere concept of hate speech. It does still exist, though, and the people who overuse it hurt the cause by cheapening the phrase. I will also admit that it's hard to define since what one person thinks is an innocuous comment could sound threatening to someone else.
And, yes, I've been the target of hate speech. In high school, a kid who was known for worshiping Hitler and who knew I was Jewish told me to my face that his only problem with Hitler was that he didn't finish the job and all Jews should be killed. This was clearly meant to intimidate me and make me scared of him - though all it did was make me want to punch him right in his nose. (I'm not violent at all, but I had to be held back that day.) One on one, I could definitely have taken this guy, but suppose he had five friends with him and they all were telling me how someone needed to "finish what Hitler started" (what the kid told me that day). I'd definitely be scared for my safety without them touching me at all.
And while I like a lot of what Obama has done, I disagree with him strongly on expanding the powers of the NSA/FBI instead of adding better checks on them. Of course, he's not solely to blame - there are a lot of people in Congress that deserve a good share of blame - but the buck does stop in the Oval Office as far as that's concerned. (Now if he vetoed it and Congress overrode his veto, I'd say his hands would be clean, but obviously that didn't happen.)
I wouldn't presume to say that all Trump supporters were in an echo chamber, but there was certainly a group that were. Then again, I'm sure there's a solid group on the left that sticks to their own news sources and see any spin or overblowing of a story as 100% fact. It can be easy to pick news sources that reinforce what you believe to be true and end up in an echo chamber. Staying out of the echo chamber can be difficult at times, but it's worthwhile if we're going to have a functioning country where both sides can converse without each declaring the other traitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've been in the market for a Chromebook for my 13 year old son. He uses Google Docs for schoolwork and the new capability of some Chromebooks to run Android apps means that he could do his "Android gaming" on the same laptop. Best of all, it won't break our tight budget. My current front-runner is the Acer Chromebook R11. (The R13 looks much nicer, but is a lot more money.)
I had my first science fiction novel published this year and, while I love reading books, actually writing and publishing one has been an amazing process. (Now working on Book #2.)
The big sticking point - beyond the price itself - is that the full version is itself an in-app purchase. That means that, should you want to install it on a few different devices, you'll need to buy it each time. To install it on my phone and my kids' tablets (assuming it's released on Android at the same price point) would cost me $30. If I switch phones, I'd need to buy it again. It would be expensive if it was a "one purchase and you have it for all of your devices," but as a "buy it again and again for each device," it's totally not worth the money.
I think the key point is the intent. If it can be proven in a court of law that they sent this animation to the journalist with the intent to trigger an epileptic seizure, then a case for assault can be made. If you sent someone a random flashing GIF and it caused a seizure, you likely wouldn't get tried for assault or, if you did, the case would get thrown out due to lack of intent. However, if you had been harassing this person for weeks saying "I hope you have a seizure" and then started sending all kinds of flashing animations at them, your outlook in court gets grimmer.
Blaming the victim of the crime for the crime being committed? What's next? "Yes, I slipped a date rape drug in her drink, your honor, but what happened next was her fault because she drank the drink."
The evidence that the Holocaust happened is overwhelming. You might as well question whether slavery really existed or whether people from Africa voluntarily came to America, worked on plantations of their own volition, and were actually well-paid for their efforts. It's easy to raise the latter as a "theory", but all historical evidence runs counter to it and the only people who would accept it (or "The Holocaust never actually happened") are racists, neo-nazis and the like.
Of the games I'm playing right now:
Disney Crossy Road: Free to play, but you can buy the "Hamm Piggy Bank" to get more coins. I tend not to need it because I just play more often to get more coins.
Marvel Avenger's Academy: Free to play, but they have a premium currency. You can get some via watching ads, but to really be able to afford premium items/characters, you need to spend real money. They've had a lot of "special events" recently which start off fine, but are clearly either "pay to win" or "you must constantly be playing this game and have no life otherwise to win." I just satisfy myself with getting an event character or two without in-app purchases and ignore the premium stuff.
Disney Magical Kingdoms: Same as Marvel Avenger's Academy, but they are more generous with handing out free premium currency for completing various actions/missions. So much so that I've been able to buy quite a few premium characters without needing to spend any actual cash.
If any of these were paid apps (perhaps with a free version to introduce you to the game) without in-app purchases, I'd gladly pay for them. However, I'm not going to pay $10 for each premium character/item.
Good point. My boys love playing games on their tablets (or our old smartphones that are WiFi-only now). If I could buy Super Mario Run for $10 and all of us could use it, then I *might* be able to rationalize it being "only $3.33 per person." Since it's $10 per device (not even per person), it would mean needing to pay for it for my phone, each of my son's tablets, and a pair of old smartphones. (If I wanted the full version on all of our devices.) I could wind up spending $50 on this game. I'd rather just buy a console Mario game and be done with it.
I never said that it should be free, but the vast majority of games are $4.99 or less - with $2-3 seeming to be the sweet spot. Yes. there are the "free" games that inundate you with in-app purchases of various sorts (and sometimes make it so that the game is all but impossible to complete without these purchases) but I much prefer an upfront fee to being nickel and dimed as I'm playing the game.
Had Super Mario Run been $4.99, I'd have considered it (when it was released on Android), but at $10, it just seems too expensive to me.
Besides the fact that the Android version is still "To Be Released At An Unannounced Date", my biggest beef is the price tag. You get the first few levels for free and then need to pay $10 to unlock everything else. I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much. If it were $1.99, I'd buy it the second it was released for Android. At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.
We've had that problem sometimes. Where my wife was home the entire day and when she opens the door (to check, not because of a doorbell ring), she sees a "you weren't at home" note. They don't even bother with the courtesy doorbell ring, just a "tag and leave." We haven't had that happen in awhile, though we have plenty of "drop package on front steps and walk off without ringing the doorbell" incidents. Luckily, Amazon sends us text messages when our packages are delivered or they might sit out there for hours and be prime package theft targets.
(I'd love to see the looks on the thieves faces when they snatch that giant Amazon.com box only to find out it contains a big package of toilet paper!)
Exactly this. Especially if the person is home and the courier leaves the package outside without even trying to ring the doorbell. We've had expensive shipments sitting outside for hours because UPS drivers don't ring the doorbells. Both of our cars are in the driveway, our lights are on, and sounds are coming from our house, but they still toss the package down and walk off. We've called UPS and they said it's their policy for drivers to ring the doorbells, but the drivers don't seem to follow through.
FedEx seems better at this by us, but this might vary depending on your local drivers. They need to enforce this policy better. Yes, it will mean slightly longer times needed for delivery (since "ring doorbell and wait 30 seconds" is longer than "drop package and walk away"), but it's worth it if it reduces package theft.
Do they blame Obama? Or do they blame Hillary? Decisions, decisions, decisions.
And if Facebook isn't living up to your expectations, you can stop using it. If Facebook thinks their users will benefit from this fact checking, they'll implement it. If users don't like it, they can complain and hope that Facebook relents or they can flee Facebook and go elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you to stay on Facebook.
For comparison, you are "forced" to accept the US government by virtue of remaining a citizen of the United States of America. You can't simply say "I'm switching to an alternative government" without physically moving out of the country. That gives the US government a much higher degree of control over your life than Facebook has which is why the US government is constrained by the First Amendment.
I wonder if a compromise could be worked out. Have the steering wheel and pedals fold away so that they are completely out of the way. However, if you need them, you could pull them out and use them.
Of course, the real issue is that people won't trust self-driving cars 100% right away (and likely shouldn't). The first models will come with steering wheels and pedals accessible. As self-driving car technology improves, the times when the human driver needs to take over will get fewer and fewer. Eventually, no pedals/steering wheel might make sense, but not right away.
This isn't "20 weeks anytime a parent feels they need time off." This is 20 weeks from the birth of your child. As the parent of two kids, I can tell you that the first three months of a child's life is basically hell on the parents. The new baby has no set schedule and will wake up at all hours of the day or night to be fed, changed, held, etc. The baby might sleep for an hour before waking up for a diaper change and then sleep another half hour before wanting to be fed. Since the parents basically need to be available for their baby 24/7, they wind up extremely sleep deprived.
It's amazing how little sleep you get by on. I've done 3 hours - total, not in one block - and then went into work because I had exhausted my vacation time (no paid paternity leave at the time). Still, the quality of the work being done by a parent with only 3 hours of sleep who stumbled into the office isn't going to be great. Plus, this then burdens the other parent with taking care of the baby 100% - likely the woman who just had a major medical event and is still recovering.
Twenty weeks of parental time off would get the parents comfortably past this point and would let them have some stability in their house before returning to work. As far as others taking up the slack - remember that this isn't going to be all parents taking off twenty weeks every year. It's going to be new parents taking time off to be with their family for the first few months of their baby's life. This would likely be one person out at a time (maybe more in a larger organization like American Express, but likely only one in each department at a time). If the rest of the department can't pick up the slack from one employee being out, then they might need to look into hiring more staff in general. What would happen if that employee had a medical issue and was out on extended leave to recover?
I think this is the key. If you're poor or middle class, you work at whatever will pay the bills. If you enjoy your job, that's a bonus, but you don't always have this luxury. If you were to become rich (and assuming you didn't just squander your newfound wealth away), you might still work but it would be only on stuff you enjoyed doing.
For example, I like my job as a web developer and I recognize that I'm lucky enough to like my job when many other people don't. However, if money were no object, I'd probably hang up my web dev toolkit and commit to writing full time. Unfortunately, said writing doesn't currently pay the bills so I can't just quit my job because I've published a novel and am working on my second one. Whether I'm rich or poor, I wouldn't be sitting around doing nothing. I'd still be working. It's just WHAT I'd be doing that would change.
Somewhere, in a plush office, a lowly functionary told a music industry big wig that they got $1 billion from YouTube. He quickly demanded more.
"Why make one billion dollars, when you can make [pinky to lip] one MILLION dollars?"
Clearly, he's extorting money from those of us who can't stand to see bad grammar, Quick! Someone pay him before he misuses their//there/they're or says "my head literally exploded!"
Many credit card companies simply don't care about fraud. If fraudulent charges happen, they reverse the charges (leaving the merchant out the cost of whatever was bought).
My identity was stolen and Capital One let the account get opened despite numerous red flags (starting with an incorrect mother's maiden name ). When I notified them of the fraud, they gave me the runaround and asked if the account was actually opened by my wife without telling me. Then, they stonewalled both me and the police to protect themselves.
Fraud is a minor inconvenience to credit card companies. Fixing the process would take them too much effort so they just deal with fraud as each case pops up.
On Twitter, even if you don't follow a person, they can still send you messages. To give another example I encountered (albeit not one involving "hate speech"), this woman online decided that I was the same person as another guy she had a problem with. Her proof? We both like photography. (She's not all there. She also claims to be a prophet of god and that god talks to her and tells her these things. Obviously, saying "you're mistaken" doesn't work.) She would harass me constantly on Twitter and, eventually, on my blog. I ignored it, but still it was annoying to come back and see a dozen messages from her. I'd block/report her and her account would be taken down, but she'd just start a new one up. (At one point, I and a few other people she was harassing found out that she had set up around a dozen accounts ahead of time for the inevitable account suspension.)
Now, her speech to me wasn't hate speech. (She was accusing me of murder/hacking/doing obscene stuff to kids/etc because god told her.) Still, she could easily have been sending me hate speech instead. Is my option in this situation "just shut down my Twitter account and don't use it anymore"? Is the only option for someone who is being harassed to leave the place where they are being harassed?
As far as deporting illegal immigrants goes, I don't see discussing it and the various policy proposals as being hate speech. It's HOW it's discussed that's the bigger issue. Saying "we should deport those illegal immigrants" is fine. Saying "all [derogatory term for Mexicans] should be rounded up and shot" obviously isn't the same thing. I welcome a rational immigration discussion. Unfortunately, there are many who use the discussion's opening to shout racist rants. This hurts both sides as the left reacts to the racists and the right has their reasonable plans drowned out by hate. (It's one reason why I'm hoping the GOP will fracture so that it can kick out the crazies and reformulate itself as a Reasonable Conservative party. I might be left-of-center, but I want reasonable options out there to keep the Democrats in check.)
Finally, I agree that I wouldn't want to see Twitter, Facebook, etc ban people for spurious reasons. People shouldn't be banned because the CEO of Twitter believes X and someone tried posting a reasonable argument why X is wrong. However, if someone is posting pure hatred and is harassing people, they should be kicked off. That's not fostering communication. That's trying to scare people into silence so the racists/bigots can force their view onto America.
It's only a First Amendment issue if the government is taking the action to limit or suppress your speech. Twitter could ban someone for any reason they like. They could have a ban for cats are better than dogs if they wanted. Nobody's free speech would be violated. Similarly, Slashdot could decide to ban people for any reason they want. This is their site and they get to determine who posts here and who doesn't. To give an offline example, it would be like someone in your house going on a rant. You have the right to ask them to leave. If they don't, you can call the police to eject them by force if necessary. The person being booted from your house has no right to complain that you are infringing on his freedom of speech because it's your house and your rules as to what speech is allowed and what isn't.
On the other hand, If President Trump declared that nobody was allowed to say that he had small hands, then that would be an example of the government infringing on our free speech rights. This would be a government official (or entity in the case of Congress passing a theoretical "Trump Hand Size Protection Act") regulating what we could and could not say.
One last point. Free speech is not absolute. I can't wave a knife at you, shout "I'm going to kill you" and expect to escape the legal system by claiming First Amendment rights. This is where "hate speech" originates. From people trying to make threats to people (based on their race, religion, etc) and then claim that it was just free speech. I'll admit that it's gotten expanded and overused to the point that many people laugh at the mere concept of hate speech. It does still exist, though, and the people who overuse it hurt the cause by cheapening the phrase. I will also admit that it's hard to define since what one person thinks is an innocuous comment could sound threatening to someone else.
And, yes, I've been the target of hate speech. In high school, a kid who was known for worshiping Hitler and who knew I was Jewish told me to my face that his only problem with Hitler was that he didn't finish the job and all Jews should be killed. This was clearly meant to intimidate me and make me scared of him - though all it did was make me want to punch him right in his nose. (I'm not violent at all, but I had to be held back that day.) One on one, I could definitely have taken this guy, but suppose he had five friends with him and they all were telling me how someone needed to "finish what Hitler started" (what the kid told me that day). I'd definitely be scared for my safety without them touching me at all.
With blackjack! And hookers!
And while I like a lot of what Obama has done, I disagree with him strongly on expanding the powers of the NSA/FBI instead of adding better checks on them. Of course, he's not solely to blame - there are a lot of people in Congress that deserve a good share of blame - but the buck does stop in the Oval Office as far as that's concerned. (Now if he vetoed it and Congress overrode his veto, I'd say his hands would be clean, but obviously that didn't happen.)
I wouldn't presume to say that all Trump supporters were in an echo chamber, but there was certainly a group that were. Then again, I'm sure there's a solid group on the left that sticks to their own news sources and see any spin or overblowing of a story as 100% fact. It can be easy to pick news sources that reinforce what you believe to be true and end up in an echo chamber. Staying out of the echo chamber can be difficult at times, but it's worthwhile if we're going to have a functioning country where both sides can converse without each declaring the other traitors.