Because the data is given by the user, to the app. For example, MyFitnessPal can share the weights you give in check-ins to advertisers or whomever. But if you had a app from a health provider or health insurance company that you logged exercises with, then HIPPA would be applicable because both of those two are covered entities.
An app could be considered a health info clearinghouse if it receives data from a covered entity, in which case HIPPA would be applicable. But as far as I have seen, these mental health apps are paywalled audio snippets about different mental issues.
You can see here [2] what entities HIPPA applies to. A app would probably fall under the rightmost "clearinghouse" column. But, that is only if the app receives data from another cover entity. If the app uses data provided voluntarily from and by the user to the app, the app is not a covered entity. [1]
Aren’t the apps just matching providers and hosting communication? In which case the providers fall under the first column? At some point, there must be a provider, right?
Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?
No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.
Private property has not always existed.
When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.
So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.
The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.
It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.
Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here. This isn't an issue of planning, and it doesn't have much to do with inequality either. A major economic depression is going to hurt the poor more than the rich.
> it doesn't have much to do with inequality either
> hurt the poor more than the rich.
...seems like the poor and rich, are quite inequal. Possibly the rich could have rigged the rules in their favor using their wealth. One could then say, that is an issue of planning, as the rich should not hold greater political sway than the majority.
None of this has anything to do with political sway. I'm talking about the economic depression that will ensue if we keep the economy closed. That will hurt the poor more than the rich. Economic depressions cause people to lose money - if you start at a higher place, you're better off when you lose 30% or more of your net worth. It has nothing to do with political influence.
took 3 seconds to find this by googling "average snap per month". I could find national numbers from secondary sources that cited federal sources but couldn't easily find a hyperlink to those federal sources.
But I am sure just as easy as typing Source? you could find your answer
none of that is true, and I hope you can find a source for any of those things. Organ harvesting of uyghur prisoners is completely unfounded and is a lie spread on the internet.
Apparently the news that a million Muslims are kept in concentration camps [1] and that Falun Gong members and other political prisoners had their organs harvested for transplant [2] were being conflated.
ETAC is wildly biased and has lied in the past about organ harvesting with other prisoners in china.
I have no reason to believe it is true this time. I do believe the US is working hard to manufacture consent that China must be destroyed as it is a threat to the continued US hegemony.
What about history not just 'sort of happening' but instead, changes in the means of production lead social change. e.g. Industrial Revolution, Factorization of production.
This is how a marxist views histories progression and I feel it is more applicable and holds up under backtesting than 'history just sort of happens'
Mao was a man of the people, who led his country to greatness, no backpedaling necessary.
Oh, I agree on changes to the means of production themselves (more broadly, technological changes) leading to massive changes in politics and society. But those are in the "sort of happens" category, as opposed to the Great Man theory, where social change is enacted by the decisions (good or bad) of powerful and important individuals.
Read Marx, but read Tolstoy too. Tolstoy argued that we all have 20/20 hindsight, and we like to argue how well our individual ideas or pet theories explain stuff that, well, just happened.
edit: I'm suddenly thinking of Bruce Sterling's novel Zeitgeist, a sort of magical-realism SF set around Y2K. When asked who would win the culture war between Islamic fundamentalism and Western secularism, the central character said "The side with the most televisions".
An app could be considered a health info clearinghouse if it receives data from a covered entity, in which case HIPPA would be applicable. But as far as I have seen, these mental health apps are paywalled audio snippets about different mental issues.