There are 4 gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mark was the earliest so it should be given fhe greatest historical significance over latter written Gospels

And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that?  For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they scolded her. But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them.  And when they heard it, they were glad and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.

-Mark 14: 3-11

Mark seems to illustrate a clear cause and affect from the disagreements over the wasting of the oil/the anointing for a burual.

Aa common view at the time (for example among the zealots) was that the messiah would be a mitary figure who would overthrow Rome.

Hearing the oil was anointing for burial must have been difficult to hear.

Luke and John use Mark and what is believed to be an unknown Q source which has since been lost.

John is known as a gospel with very high Christology, and presents it as the work of Satan as OP already mentioned so I won’t source that.

Let’s compare the deaths of Judas in Mark and later Acts (same author as Luke) to get a sense of what they thought in between the earliest Mark and the later higher Christology John.

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

-Mark 27:3-10

Judas feels regret and hangs himself. Notice the part about the prophecy though, there’s clearly a preexisting reason they want this story to tell what it tells.

Versus the latter Acts

With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.

Acts 1:18

You can see here the prophecy of “field of blood” is now being interpreted way more literally than earlier Mark and they’re now in full improv mode yes anding each other into the idea that it was all predestined.

Each gospel implies something different about the story of Judas and each is interesting in its own right.

“Totally retracred or cut” means either the foreskin is cut or that it’s just pulled back.

We don’t know if it’s cut or not, we can only speculate it looks like one.

“Lalalala you can’t send me to concentration camps if I can’t hear Trump lalalala”

That’d be great, but the “how” is a much harder question.

As with the implementation of any obvious law, of course.

What counts as advertising? Because there’s a reason Google, Meta, etc. have their fingers in so many different industries: every single thing that gets attention could be leveraged for advertising, even the act of suppressing mentions of competitors.

Sure, maybe that’s an interesting question.

After all television commercials and magazine inserts and pop up ads and billboards are gone we can start debating the nuance of where exactly the line is drawn.

Should I be able to say “X product has been great, I recommend it!” Only if I’m not being paid, you say?

Correct!

How could you possibly know?

You would have to report that income on your taxes and if you ever get audited and that was a substantial amount of your income they will find out and go after the major players who are profiting off it illegally at tax time.

Think about gambling or alcohol. How do we know you aren’t selling unlicensed alcohol or running an unlicensed casino? We still have laws despite the uncertainty.

As discussed in the article, “propaganda” is illegal. So any discussion about how terrible trump is would also be illegal.

I feel like you’re confused about the difference between speech and propaganda. Discussion about Trump isn’t propaganda.

I know we currently do not, but it is possible to treat an individual and a business/corporation differently.

It is possible to hold an organizations speech to different standards than an individual.

The discussion of outlawing propaganda doesn’t have to have anything to do with your individual ability to express your opinion up until the point you try to organize and artificially broadcast that speech wider than you could on your own.