The EU has such, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), works reasonably well. Pretty good place to start.

This looks to be more an endorsement of moderation principles and rules, not determining truth of comments.

For the difficulties in determining what's true, see the kerfuffle about Media Bias Fact Check.

I haven’t read the graphic novel of the Handmaid’s tale, but I don’t know if I would read the book to 14 year olds.

This reads like the ugly kind of censorship. Where: 1) without knowledge of the graphic book, calling for its universal removal from school libraries. 2) not knowing if 14 year-olds should read it, ban it (i.e. ban all books that can't be read by the youngest library patron; a notion few books could survive). And 3) belittling people (calling those who disagree with uninformed censorship "ass-mad up the wazoo").

Now there is a little nuance to the post, but it's outweighed by crude assessments.

Let's extend this thought experiment a little. Consider just forum posts; the numbers will be somewhat similar for articles and other writings, as well as photos and videos.

A bot creates how many more posts than a human? Being (ridiculously) conservative, we'll say 10x more.

On day one: 10 humans are posting (for simplicity's sake) 10 times a day, totaling 100 posts. Bot is posting 100 a day. For a total of 200 human and bot posts; 50% of which are the bot.

In your (extended) example, at the end of a year: 10 humans are still posting 100 times a day. The 10 bots are posting a total of 1000 times a day. Bots are at 90%, humans 10%.

This statistic can lead you to think human participation in the Internet is difficult to find.

Returning to reality, consider how inhuman AI bots are, with each probably able to outpost humans by millions or billions of times under millions of aliases each. If you find search engines, articles, forums, reviews, and such are bonkers now, just wait a few years. Predicting general chaotic nonsense for the Internet is a rational conclusion, with very few islands of humanity. Unless bots are stopped.

Right now though, bots are increasing.

As to how rationales go, this is the clearest.

I hate it.

If a registrar goes out of business, ICANN transfers the domain(s) to another registrar.

If a name server business fails, you change name servers through your registrar.

You can't really fix registrar services in your name server, nor name server problems through your registrar. (Unless, of course, your registrar is also your name server.)

The way the market works: You charge a competitive price that allows you to cover your costs and make a profit. If your product provides enough value to the buyer, they’ll pay for it.

That's what's taught. There's quite a bit more in practice, including: what insurance companies learned from management consultants.

But they aren’t colluding to eek every ounce of money from people.

Maybe so, though there appears to be a common interest.

Small enough to fit on a CD, which isn't everyone's definition of "small." There are, of course, much smaller Linux distros, less than a tenth the size; particularly if CLI is adequate.

They don’t have a water district because it’s literally too expensive to build and not because some taxes Boogeyman.

This is nonsense. It's precisely because of a belief in a "taxes Boogeyman."

Necessities "too expensive to build" for individuals are what taxes are for: water, sewer, roads, fire departments, etc. Individuals buying into 5-house developments without water are finding out the consequences of their philosophy -- and don't like it. And rather than recognize the predictable outcome of their belief, they demand necessities from nearby people more responsible than themselves.

In addition to the Texas stand on Medicaid expansion, from the article:

Texas is "ground zero" for the Medicaid unwinding, Alker said. The state leads the U.S. in disenrollments, with around 1.7 million this year, according to KFF.

The arguments are pretty spot on (with plenty of exceptions, e.g. efforts to privatize healthcare in each country; but we're generalizing here), not so much the conclusion:

not sure why you’re talking about expanding the very thing we’re politically unable to sustain as if it’s a way to sidestep the problem.

Unsustainable: US healthcare for profit. Evidence: Most expensive healthcare in the world with average or worse results.

Sustainable: Universal healthcare for everyone. Evidence: Every other country in North America, Europe, Australia, parts of Africa and South America.

The US is already among the worst for infant mortality (bottom 4th among North American and Western European countries). The downward-trend causes and solutions are interrelated and complex, and include (and aren't limited to):

• For profit (privatized) healthcare (for those under 65, the child-raising generations); solution: universal basic (single-payer) healthcare.
• Laws limiting healthcare options for women; solution: reinstate Roe v. Wade
• Limiting financial support for families forced by law (and religion-based moral public pressure) into providing for a child they can't afford; solution: universal basic income and healthcare.
• Local environmental conditions (chemical exposure of workers and residents); solution: improve, enforce, and fund environmental protection.
• Pharmaceuticals based on loose evidence for lack of harm (e.g. short-term, limited, selective studies); solution: independent long-term studies based on evidence of safety.

None of the problems are a surprise, they are the predictable consequences of choices. None of the solutions are flawless, even while they head in a more public direction.