Pointing out that it wasn't FOX NEWs that started it
I didn't say Fox News started it, I said that Fox News has been, from very early on, the principal communication mechanism and an active channel for promoting the movement, invalidating your suggestion that it was a counterexample to the argument that loose, social-media-style communication networks were sufficient to sustain a movement for an extended period of time.
I said that Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity started it.
So, cherry picking tidbits doesn't make a case for you, when you examine the whole "start" was a couple small time groups going viral. At least according to wikipedia.
The only thing your source mentions "going viral" isn't a "couple of small-time groups". Its a video from CNBC (not a "small group") that was then actively promoted by the Drudge Report (a centralized, top-down information pump).
Then by that criteria, George Soros is running everything left of center.
No, by that standard, George Soros is running some things left of center (there are plenty of left-of-center organizations that don't have Soros or Soros-controlled entities as a principal funder), and it would be inaccurate to describe those that are sustained principally by top-down funding from Soros as being grassroots organizations sustained solely by loose, social media networks.
But, see, unlike the largely Koch-funded Tea Party movement, no one suggested any Soros-funded left-of-center entity as an example of a grassroots organization sustained solely by loose, social media networks.
Tea Party is Centralized? Like the NAACP bus protest? WHO is running the Tea Party? Vague notions of "industrialists" and "corporate lobbying groups" smacks of typical "vast right wing conspiracy" crap we hear from the far left.
The main two channels for funding, from day one, are Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity.
The main institutional communication medium is Fox News, who even billed the original FreedomWorks and AFP-organized Tax Day Tea Party Protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Party Protests" on the air in promoting them.
Fox News is not a loose, social-media style network. Neither are Freedom Works or Americans for Prosperity.
It is funny how the same Industialists and Corporate Lobbying groups can't get their established politicians (Crist) elected, and tea party people (Rubio) are winning elections.
The same lobbying groups that are funding the Tea Party movement are usually not backing the candidates that the movement opposes.
Other lobbying groups might be, but differing lobbying groups (even if they are perceived as being on the same side of the left/right divide) backing opposing positions is hardly new.
People are blindly following the sciences, and that's a huge problem.
That's impossible, as sciences never tell you what you should do, only how things work. You can't blindly follow any science -- or at least, if you did, you'd just be sitting in one place not going anywhere.
Choosing where to go requires something outside of science, a motivation or goal. Sciences can tell you how you might acheive that goal given what you know about the existing state of the world, but they won't tell you what the goal should be.
Most of what you seem to be talking about in your post isn't people "following sciences" blindly, its people narrowly focussing on a set of goals and how to acheive them without properly considering the broader consequences. Of course, the sciences actually have quite a lot of results on how people misassess risks and make decisions that are individually or socially suboptimal; were people really taking into account the information from the sciences as a whole, they'd be considering those results in making their own decisions, as well. But they aren't, and while that may be "blind" its not, in any meaningful sense, "following the sciences".
The plant itself is, but feeding "corn" to cattle differs from feeding "grass" to cattle because "corn-fed" cattle are fed a diet high in the grain of the corn, while "grass-fed" (or "pasture-fed") cattle eat largely whole grass plants, of which a very small portion is the grain (also, corn has been selectively cultivated for a very long time to produce more and different grain from the grasses from which it originated.)
Congress is too busy regulating rulers and paperclips in Science kits.
Congress and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are two distinct groups of people; the latter is the one about which there is a recent story on Slashdot about the rulers and paperclips thing, and was created by Congress, like other regulatory commission, specifically so that Congress wouldn't, in the normal course of business, need to get into the details of regulation of things within the scope of the regulatory authority Congress established for CPSC.
. In contrast, a loose, social-media style network wouldn't have sustained the year long campaign.
TeaParty
Q.E.D
I do not think that means what you think it means.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the TeaParty movement at all, I'm just saying that it seems to be counter to what the author just said
The "Tea Party" movement, like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, was started and sustained by a top-down organization. Unlike the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the organization is an extremely well-funded group of the extremely wealthy industrialists, with major media support, from the very beginning -- the "Tax Day Tea Party" protests in April 2009 that were the beginning of the movement were organized and funded by corporate lobbying groups and actively promoted by Fox News, and the movement continues to be funded heavily through the same corporate lobbying groups and promoted by Fox News.
So, no, the validity of the Tea Party movement aside, its existence is absolutely not a counterpoint to the argument that a loose, social-media style network couldn't have sustained a year-long campaign similar to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, because the Tea Party movement isn't sustained by a loose, social-media style network.
Leave the signs as they are, and refund that money to the taxpayers.
But the signs are going to need to be replaced anyway, so not changing them to lowercase as they are replaced wouldn't actually save the cost of replacement. There's a reason that the 2003 federal regulation at issue that requires that this be done gave until 2018 for it to be complete.
Er, since when are all-capital signs hard to read?
Since forever.
That's why things that need to be easy to read (and that are prepared by people that know what they are doing) are written in mixed case, and have been for centuries.
All-caps are used to grab and focus attention, but are harder to read.
PC and Mac apps worked on any PC and Mac as long as the hardware met the requirements. Dell/HP didn't do too much customization of the OS except for including drivers and wallpaper/BIOS for branding
Back in the days of DOS before Win95 took over the PC world, when the PC market was growing, while what you say was largely true as written, you have to remember that there was a lot less abstraction of hardware, and that the diversity (in the PC world) of hardware was at least as significant as the diversity of customized Android OS software and hardware combined (and, that there were quite a few versions of MS/PC-DOS, and toward the end of the period a few clones, floating around simultaneously as OS software), and yet the PC software market did quite well (and, once the Mac was around, better than the market for Mac software despite the latters more uniform target platform.)
Because every year government spends more, borrows more, and seizes more power over the people
There are three claims here: 1. Every year, the government spends more 2. Every year, the government borrows more 3. Every year, the government seizes more power over the people
#1 is a fact claim. Its probably true on an absolute scale (nominal or real dollars per year) over a reasonable historical period, though I'm not sure why you think its meaningful.
#2 is a fact claim. Its false over any but a fairly short historical window: the amount the government borrows each year has not been monotonically increasing over any really substantial timeframe, if it were, not only would the debt increase year to year but the increase in the debt year to year itself would be increasing. In fact, this is not the case.
yet the end result is worse government, not better government.
This is an opinion claim, and I suspect that even as such, its not all that broadly held. I think you would find that the people that thought the government got worse year-to-year from 2000 to 2001 tend not to think that about 2008 to 2009, and vice versa.
Do you see a trend here? I sure do. The people at the top of the pyramid aren't interested at all in good government; they're interested in cash flow, and in general, expanding their business so that they can better exploit it for personal gain.
Not only does this conclusion not naturally flow from your stated premises, it doesn't make the case the post claims to be making. The post responds to a discussion about the justification for the conclusion that people in government are incompetent, and you introduce with "because" a poorly argued case that government decisionmakers are uniformly successful in advancing their goals, but motivated by goals you disagree with. That's not incompetence.
They're demanding that PAPERCLIPS be tested for lead!
Yes, and...so?
In a CHEMISTRY KIT!
I think you are mistaking excessive use of all-caps and exclamation points for the presentation of an argument.
How many examples of complete idiocy do we need before we just conclude that they're all morons?
I don't know. But certainly, so far, I've seen mor evidence of complete idiocy from you than the CPSC.
They just completed widening the sidewalk next to my house. It is now 10ft wide, and still no one walks on them. Two weeks ago, they put up STOP signs at the intersections (Yes, stop signs for the sidewalks). Last week, they took the signs down. Seems that one department with some money to burn was to incompetent to check to see if it was legal to put up extra signs all over the place.
I somehow have a feeling that this unverifiable (as you haven't said where any of this took place) story is, at best, incomplete and misleading. At any rate, the conclusion you offer as to what it seems is not supported by the information in the story, which, even aside from the unverifiability of anything in the story, doesn't present any reason to believe that the conclusion drawn -- that someone was "to [sic] incompetent" to check and see if it was legal -- is true, and particularly that one of the key premises of that conclusion, that anything done was illegal, is true.
If we accept on faith the factual characterization, while discounting what you describe as your subjective impression based on those facts, there might be a reason to suspect that the action was unnecessary and undesirable considered on its own, but no reason to believe that it is illegal. Indeed, none of the facts related are inconsistent with it being mandated by law, and perhaps just a weird edge case of some combination of laws that are, on balance, good.
The CPSC could stick to something useful, like banning products with hidden and unexpected dangers, but no.
That's why the testing requirements exist, to identify hidden and unexpected dangers.
The CPSC is not seeking to ban anything. It is refusing to exempt materials from the testing requirements that exist to identify hidden and unexpected dangers.
If you don't test products to identify hidden and unexpected dangers so that you can determine if those dangers exist and, if they exist, whether they are so extensive so as to make it appropriate to ban the product or whether appropriate guidance which renders them not hidden and unexpected is sufficient, then you can't deal with hidden and unexpected dangers.
If our kids aren't smart enough to use a ruler without injury, what can we really expect them to learn?
Certainly, I remember going being in elementary school and my favorite cutting tool was the metal edge on the then-standard wood-with-metal-edge rulers, which cut paper very nearly as well as a razor blade and could be quite dangerous misused. While its not necessary for a ruler to be constructed that way (there are other kinds of rulers), and while there are certainly legitimate uses for that particular feature, I wouldn't say that a ruler is the kind of thing that ought to be categorically excluded from consideration of whether or not it is designed and constructed in a manner which is appropriately safe given the intended use of the product it is contained in, including the target market.
And note that the issue here isn't the CPSC saying that any of the components are dangerous or inappropriate, only that they have declined to grant a waiver exempting them from existing safety testing requirements.
No other non-profit gets to exempt non-business land like churches do.
Property taxes -- and whether churches or other property are exempt from them -- are generally matters of state and local law, and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In jurisdictions where some church property are exempt from property taxes, other charities are generally also exempt under similar terms.
The most common rule for property tax exemption for nonprofits, including churches, seems to be that the property must be owned by a non-profit educational, charitable, or, in some jurisdictions, healthcare entity, and must be used exclusively for exempt purposes.
See, e.g., here, in the first paragraph under "Chapter Findings/Part I: Framework and Structure".
If a few friends can't start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views without the government telling them what they may and may not say, then we may as well just pack it in right now.
The corporate form is in no way necessary for a "few friends" to do that, and therefore restrictions on the freedom of corporations -- which are creatures of government -- have no impact on whether or not people are able to form an organization to promote political views without government intervention.
The corporate form inherently exists to provide a subsidy (by, particularly, special limitations on liability incurred through the corporation) to business actions undertaken on behalf of the stakeholders of a business enterprise, on the notional basis that those business activities will, on balance, produce a public benefit that warrants such a subsidy.
It is quite possible for people to combine for any purpose without this special subsidy.
Churches are a huge political and financial force and they should be taxed as businesses
Churches are taxed as businesses.
Businesses that aren't churches that comply with the rules for tax-exempt non-profit organizations under the tax code get the same treatment as tax-exempt churches, and churches that don't follow those rules that apply to tax-exempt non-profit organizations in general are taxed just like for-profit businesses.
If this comes to pass, then corporations will soon have more rights than people do.
Corporations are legal fictions, so when they are treated as having rights, they aren't really the ones that have those rights -- the people that control the corporations are. So, its not that corporations will have more rights than people do, its that the people who run corporations will have more rights than other people do.
I'm all for the blind being able to use the web. But wouldn't it be much better to approach the issue as a technological one on the viewer's end, and not a legislative one on the designer's end?
The technological problem on the viewer's end is largely solved, so long as existing web standards and best practices regarding separation of content and presentation are adhered to.
Aside from technology that essentially cures blindness, though, your never going to get a technological solution on the viewer's end that deals with the choice to use inaccessible presentation as the only way of getting at the content on the designer's end.
If it is useful software, people will develop for it for free. This is the core concept of Open Source software.
No, its not. Plenty of people who develope open source software are paid to do it. The key concept of open source software is that giving people the freedom to modify and redistribute software (including the freedom to pay people other than the original developer to do so) produces better software.
Now, inherently, the permission to redistribute source freely that is necessary to FOSS software means that open source software is generally incompatible with traditional commercial software sales business models, as FOSS software, once someone other than the developer has their hands on it, is likely to be available free (gratis) as well as Free (libre), even if the initial user of the software may have to pay for it.
That means that the software that gets developed as FOSS software tends to be: 1. Software that scratches the developers own itch, such that the utility is principally in having it rather than selling it, and kudos, feedback and improvements from the community are more important to the creator than licensing fees. 2. Software that fills a use need of the person underwriting development (this is mostly similar to #1, except that instead of the developer having the interest, someone else has the interest and pays the developer.) 3. Software that the developer/underwriter has an interest in being widely available to others to use because that promotes some other interest of the developer/underwriter.
Note that multiple of these can apply to the same software, and when multiple different entities are doing and underwriting the development, different considerations might apply to different participants.
Sadly, the US justice system frowns on lynch mobs, which is why we have a lot of these stupid social problems
Social systems which tolerate lynch mobs and vigilante justice have much bigger social problems, which is one reason they tend to evolve into systems that don't tolerate those things, and the ones that don't also don't tend to be as successful.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say Fox News started it, I said that Fox News has been, from very early on, the principal communication mechanism and an active channel for promoting the movement, invalidating your suggestion that it was a counterexample to the argument that loose, social-media-style communication networks were sufficient to sustain a movement for an extended period of time.
I said that Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity started it.
The only thing your source mentions "going viral" isn't a "couple of small-time groups". Its a video from CNBC (not a "small group") that was then actively promoted by the Drudge Report (a centralized, top-down information pump).
No, by that standard, George Soros is running some things left of center (there are plenty of left-of-center organizations that don't have Soros or Soros-controlled entities as a principal funder), and it would be inaccurate to describe those that are sustained principally by top-down funding from Soros as being grassroots organizations sustained solely by loose, social media networks.
But, see, unlike the largely Koch-funded Tea Party movement, no one suggested any Soros-funded left-of-center entity as an example of a grassroots organization sustained solely by loose, social media networks.
The main two channels for funding, from day one, are Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity.
The main institutional communication medium is Fox News, who even billed the original FreedomWorks and AFP-organized Tax Day Tea Party Protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Party Protests" on the air in promoting them.
Fox News is not a loose, social-media style network. Neither are Freedom Works or Americans for Prosperity.
It is funny how the same Industialists and Corporate Lobbying groups can't get their established politicians (Crist) elected, and tea party people (Rubio) are winning elections.
The same lobbying groups that are funding the Tea Party movement are usually not backing the candidates that the movement opposes.
Other lobbying groups might be, but differing lobbying groups (even if they are perceived as being on the same side of the left/right divide) backing opposing positions is hardly new.
People are blindly following the sciences, and that's a huge problem.
That's impossible, as sciences never tell you what you should do, only how things work. You can't blindly follow any science -- or at least, if you did, you'd just be sitting in one place not going anywhere.
Choosing where to go requires something outside of science, a motivation or goal. Sciences can tell you how you might acheive that goal given what you know about the existing state of the world, but they won't tell you what the goal should be.
Most of what you seem to be talking about in your post isn't people "following sciences" blindly, its people narrowly focussing on a set of goals and how to acheive them without properly considering the broader consequences. Of course, the sciences actually have quite a lot of results on how people misassess risks and make decisions that are individually or socially suboptimal; were people really taking into account the information from the sciences as a whole, they'd be considering those results in making their own decisions, as well. But they aren't, and while that may be "blind" its not, in any meaningful sense, "following the sciences".
The plant itself is, but feeding "corn" to cattle differs from feeding "grass" to cattle because "corn-fed" cattle are fed a diet high in the grain of the corn, while "grass-fed" (or "pasture-fed") cattle eat largely whole grass plants, of which a very small portion is the grain (also, corn has been selectively cultivated for a very long time to produce more and different grain from the grasses from which it originated.)
Congress is too busy regulating rulers and paperclips in Science kits.
Congress and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are two distinct groups of people; the latter is the one about which there is a recent story on Slashdot about the rulers and paperclips thing, and was created by Congress, like other regulatory commission, specifically so that Congress wouldn't, in the normal course of business, need to get into the details of regulation of things within the scope of the regulatory authority Congress established for CPSC.
So, no, Congress isn't busy with that at all.
. In contrast, a loose, social-media style network wouldn't have sustained the year long campaign.
TeaParty
Q.E.D
I do not think that means what you think it means.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the TeaParty movement at all, I'm just saying that it seems to be counter to what the author just said
The "Tea Party" movement, like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, was started and sustained by a top-down organization. Unlike the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the organization is an extremely well-funded group of the extremely wealthy industrialists, with major media support, from the very beginning -- the "Tax Day Tea Party" protests in April 2009 that were the beginning of the movement were organized and funded by corporate lobbying groups and actively promoted by Fox News, and the movement continues to be funded heavily through the same corporate lobbying groups and promoted by Fox News.
So, no, the validity of the Tea Party movement aside, its existence is absolutely not a counterpoint to the argument that a loose, social-media style network couldn't have sustained a year-long campaign similar to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, because the Tea Party movement isn't sustained by a loose, social-media style network.
Leave the signs as they are, and refund that money to the taxpayers.
But the signs are going to need to be replaced anyway, so not changing them to lowercase as they are replaced wouldn't actually save the cost of replacement. There's a reason that the 2003 federal regulation at issue that requires that this be done gave until 2018 for it to be complete.
Er, since when are all-capital signs hard to read?
Since forever.
That's why things that need to be easy to read (and that are prepared by people that know what they are doing) are written in mixed case, and have been for centuries.
All-caps are used to grab and focus attention, but are harder to read.
There aren't any "less-than" symbols in "x264 > WebP > JPG".
Back in the days of DOS before Win95 took over the PC world, when the PC market was growing, while what you say was largely true as written, you have to remember that there was a lot less abstraction of hardware, and that the diversity (in the PC world) of hardware was at least as significant as the diversity of customized Android OS software and hardware combined (and, that there were quite a few versions of MS/PC-DOS, and toward the end of the period a few clones, floating around simultaneously as OS software), and yet the PC software market did quite well (and, once the Mac was around, better than the market for Mac software despite the latters more uniform target platform.)
There are three claims here:
1. Every year, the government spends more
2. Every year, the government borrows more
3. Every year, the government seizes more power over the people
#1 is a fact claim. Its probably true on an absolute scale (nominal or real dollars per year) over a reasonable historical period, though I'm not sure why you think its meaningful.
#2 is a fact claim. Its false over any but a fairly short historical window: the amount the government borrows each year has not been monotonically increasing over any really substantial timeframe, if it were, not only would the debt increase year to year but the increase in the debt year to year itself would be increasing. In fact, this is not the case.
This is an opinion claim, and I suspect that even as such, its not all that broadly held. I think you would find that the people that thought the government got worse year-to-year from 2000 to 2001 tend not to think that about 2008 to 2009, and vice versa.
Not only does this conclusion not naturally flow from your stated premises, it doesn't make the case the post claims to be making. The post responds to a discussion about the justification for the conclusion that people in government are incompetent, and you introduce with "because" a poorly argued case that government decisionmakers are uniformly successful in advancing their goals, but motivated by goals you disagree with. That's not incompetence.
I didn't say it needs to be.
I just said it is.
Yes, and...so?
I think you are mistaking excessive use of all-caps and exclamation points for the presentation of an argument.
I don't know. But certainly, so far, I've seen mor evidence of complete idiocy from you than the CPSC.
I somehow have a feeling that this unverifiable (as you haven't said where any of this took place) story is, at best, incomplete and misleading. At any rate, the conclusion you offer as to what it seems is not supported by the information in the story, which, even aside from the unverifiability of anything in the story, doesn't present any reason to believe that the conclusion drawn -- that someone was "to [sic] incompetent" to check and see if it was legal -- is true, and particularly that one of the key premises of that conclusion, that anything done was illegal, is true.
If we accept on faith the factual characterization, while discounting what you describe as your subjective impression based on those facts, there might be a reason to suspect that the action was unnecessary and undesirable considered on its own, but no reason to believe that it is illegal. Indeed, none of the facts related are inconsistent with it being mandated by law, and perhaps just a weird edge case of some combination of laws that are, on balance, good.
With many people, that's not a conclusion, its a fundamental, axiomatic assumption. Or, put another way, an article of faith.
That's why the testing requirements exist, to identify hidden and unexpected dangers.
The CPSC is not seeking to ban anything. It is refusing to exempt materials from the testing requirements that exist to identify hidden and unexpected dangers.
If you don't test products to identify hidden and unexpected dangers so that you can determine if those dangers exist and, if they exist, whether they are so extensive so as to make it appropriate to ban the product or whether appropriate guidance which renders them not hidden and unexpected is sufficient, then you can't deal with hidden and unexpected dangers.
Not exempting materials from existing safety testing requirements isn't the same thing as banning them.
Certainly, I remember going being in elementary school and my favorite cutting tool was the metal edge on the then-standard wood-with-metal-edge rulers, which cut paper very nearly as well as a razor blade and could be quite dangerous misused. While its not necessary for a ruler to be constructed that way (there are other kinds of rulers), and while there are certainly legitimate uses for that particular feature, I wouldn't say that a ruler is the kind of thing that ought to be categorically excluded from consideration of whether or not it is designed and constructed in a manner which is appropriately safe given the intended use of the product it is contained in, including the target market.
And note that the issue here isn't the CPSC saying that any of the components are dangerous or inappropriate, only that they have declined to grant a waiver exempting them from existing safety testing requirements.
Property taxes -- and whether churches or other property are exempt from them -- are generally matters of state and local law, and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In jurisdictions where some church property are exempt from property taxes, other charities are generally also exempt under similar terms.
The most common rule for property tax exemption for nonprofits, including churches, seems to be that the property must be owned by a non-profit educational, charitable, or, in some jurisdictions, healthcare entity, and must be used exclusively for exempt purposes.
See, e.g., here, in the first paragraph under "Chapter Findings/Part I: Framework and Structure".
The corporate form is in no way necessary for a "few friends" to do that, and therefore restrictions on the freedom of corporations -- which are creatures of government -- have no impact on whether or not people are able to form an organization to promote political views without government intervention.
The corporate form inherently exists to provide a subsidy (by, particularly, special limitations on liability incurred through the corporation) to business actions undertaken on behalf of the stakeholders of a business enterprise, on the notional basis that those business activities will, on balance, produce a public benefit that warrants such a subsidy.
It is quite possible for people to combine for any purpose without this special subsidy.
Churches are taxed as businesses.
Businesses that aren't churches that comply with the rules for tax-exempt non-profit organizations under the tax code get the same treatment as tax-exempt churches, and churches that don't follow those rules that apply to tax-exempt non-profit organizations in general are taxed just like for-profit businesses.
Corporations are legal fictions, so when they are treated as having rights, they aren't really the ones that have those rights -- the people that control the corporations are. So, its not that corporations will have more rights than people do, its that the people who run corporations will have more rights than other people do.
The technological problem on the viewer's end is largely solved, so long as existing web standards and best practices regarding separation of content and presentation are adhered to.
Aside from technology that essentially cures blindness, though, your never going to get a technological solution on the viewer's end that deals with the choice to use inaccessible presentation as the only way of getting at the content on the designer's end.
No, its not. Plenty of people who develope open source software are paid to do it. The key concept of open source software is that giving people the freedom to modify and redistribute software (including the freedom to pay people other than the original developer to do so) produces better software.
Now, inherently, the permission to redistribute source freely that is necessary to FOSS software means that open source software is generally incompatible with traditional commercial software sales business models, as FOSS software, once someone other than the developer has their hands on it, is likely to be available free (gratis) as well as Free (libre), even if the initial user of the software may have to pay for it.
That means that the software that gets developed as FOSS software tends to be:
1. Software that scratches the developers own itch, such that the utility is principally in having it rather than selling it, and kudos, feedback and improvements from the community are more important to the creator than licensing fees.
2. Software that fills a use need of the person underwriting development (this is mostly similar to #1, except that instead of the developer having the interest, someone else has the interest and pays the developer.)
3. Software that the developer/underwriter has an interest in being widely available to others to use because that promotes some other interest of the developer/underwriter.
Note that multiple of these can apply to the same software, and when multiple different entities are doing and underwriting the development, different considerations might apply to different participants.
Social systems which tolerate lynch mobs and vigilante justice have much bigger social problems, which is one reason they tend to evolve into systems that don't tolerate those things, and the ones that don't also don't tend to be as successful.
Because more of the danger is from distraction than the use of a hand on the device, so speech-to-text solves something that isn't the problem.