Except even scientists will often use "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably. For example Stephen Jay Gould's theory on punctuated equilibrium, kin selection (theory) vs group selection (theory), all the various names given to Williams/Dawkins/Ridley's theories on evolution, all the various theories relating ontogeny to phylogeny, and on and on. All these things are probably more properly referred to as hypotheses within the broader theory of evolution, where here the meaning of theory switches to be more in line with the "true" definition of theory.

But maybe this is just an idiosyncrasy of evolutionary biologists, I'm not familiar enough with other fields. But then again there are all of those mathematical "theories" like group theory, number theory, set theory, game theory, and on and on. Not sure how to categorize these.

Point is we (scientists/scientific communicators) often make this hardline distinction between the meaning of "theory" and "hypothesis" but regularly break our own rule.

I actually recalled some that aren't just evolutionary biology: string theory (physics) and rational choice theory (economics) neither of which really deserve to be called theories if we are sticking to the strict definition, but yet scientists do.

See my answer above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34702479

Weren't all these questions answered during the great recession, It wasn't easy but Google weathered the storm. Why is any upcoming recession going to be substantially different.

It's frustrating that this topic keeps being discussed as if there are only two options. Why not provide each individual users with powerful tools that let them specify the type of content they want to see and when. They can have a large amount of presets and with a single button click users can change what they'll be seeing or they can spend some time and modify it to their liking. People can also share the filters they created. Even better create an open API and let companies compete with each other over who provides the best filters.

Moderation is important, but why leave it up to executives at these massive companies to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Let each user decide for themselves.

> Why not provide each individual users with powerful tools that let them specify the type of content they want to see and when

Tools like adblock/ublock/etc dramatically improve user experience and performance on the internet, yet less than 30% of desktop users employ adblocking. Requiring end-users to set up filters to not be accosted by content that most people find objectionable will generally not be a winning proposition.

I don't think that is a good analogy. In this case these filters would be presented to you as you setup your account. In addition with filter sharing any user would only be one button press away from adopting someones else's filter. There could be a wide diversity of filters and users can change their filter by the minute. Imagine if browsers treated adblock/ublock/etc as integral parts of your experience and not as an extra add-on.

> Why not provide each individual users with powerful tools that let them specify the type of content they want to see and when.

Agreed, but that's the issue - many people don't want anyone to see some content because they are convinced such misinformation causes people they don't like to be elected, etc. I'm of the opinion that filtering is its own type of propaganda.

All you've done is created a straw man. No one is arguing that the app store shouldn't exist or that if you choose to you shouldn't be allowed to use it exclusively. The argument is that alternatives should be allowed to exist and that people should be allowed to install whatever software they like on the devices they own.

If other app stores or modes of installation exist, that ruins nothing for you. You can just ignore them and go on as you do now.