As a US person myself, I don't really take issue with stopping extraditions because it would probably be a lot cheaper just to execute enemies abroad. Think how much money Putin has saved over the years. Now the whole Kashoggi mess shows how easy it is for this approach to backfire, so you certainly have to be careful.
European invaders stole it from Native Americans as a whole. Just because no specific individual owns it doesn't mean it's free real estate.
From a purely anarchistic point of view, European settlers were within their rights to settle upon and use that unowned land. They weren't, however, within their rights to to use that "unowned" land at the expense of other people already using that land, and thus the Native Americans were within their rights to defend against such a deprivation of access. Unfortunately, the Europeans had numbers, guns, and smallpox on their side, and as the Native Americans retreated further West the Europeans continued to spread.
And to be clear: the Native Americans were using that land. A reasonably-healthy wilderness ecosystem is crucial for hunting, as any hunter can attest even in the modern-day; kinda hard to hunt bison if there ain't any bison.
I think you're right and we should just use a different word instead of fighting against the plain meaning. It shouldn't come as a surprise that when it takes 4 paragraphs to explain why the plain meaning of a word isn't how the word's allowed to be used, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.
I don't think anyone would argue with the value side of the question. The tricky part is calculating the cost side. (The cost of not deleting old messages.)
Surely we can agree that the cost side is > 0.
I'd argue that the benefit side is generally at least a little lower than what we think it's going to be. And if the expiration limit is set to say, 1 year, the cost of deleting old messages goes down considerably.
