volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@breedlov It just emphasizes, if you don't want a president to do things you don't want him to do with the authorities you've given him, maybe revoke those authorities.

@csolisr Well that assumes particular goals and motivations.

Downhill 'em? You're assuming that's not exactly the goal!

@jonny The problem is that such norms very often end up misleading people into false senses of security, and we're seeing that play out right here right now on Fediverse where people are publishing content without realizing that they are setting it free to the world.

@thisismissem @_elena

@europesays The federal investigations disproved those claims, though.

@ShadSterling You're kind of missing the point there.

The US has designed corporate regulations because these instruments of providing for investment benefit its citizens.

It's BECAUSE the US cares about its citizens that it has more effective corporate rules to promote the general welfare.

And it's pretty noteworthy that internationally over the decades other countries have worked to catch up with the US as they were finding themselves falling behind for their citizens.

@Colman @dcjohnson

@opethminded But you're assuming that matching the popular vote is a good thing.

The EC was built on the premise that there are better ways to do things than just matching the popular vote.

So it kind of begs the question to say that matching the popular vote would be better when the issue is that it might not be at all.

@NewsDesk @npr

@ShadSterling It's like using a screwdriver to pry parts apart: it's not what the tool is for, but you can use it when you want to.

That aside, even without pooling from multiple investors corporate structures still allow easier capitalization over and above liability shielding.

@dcjohnson

@anarchic_teapot The privilege of being a publicly traded company in the US comes with a whole lot of regulations and responsibilities, everything from public disclosure requirements through fiduciary responsibilities.

So yes, it does change things.

@MarkAB @GottaLaff

@dcjohnson you need to go farther, though: often enough executives don't do things either, leaving the actual work to employees below them.

And sorting that sort of thing out is why we have corporate structures in the first place and start, from the beginning, as treating corporate activity as if the corporation did do the thing.

So, we hold the corporation accountable, which provides the incentive for the responsible parties to be held responsible by their owners who lost out.

It's the opposite of letting an executive off the hook. It's incentivizing ongoing policing first hold them responsible and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Sometimes government policy is in place because it's simply a good idea.

@ShadSterling

No, not really.

The main point of a corporation is to provide a standard and reliable way for people to more easily and effectively pool their resources to accomplish some goal.

It provides a legal framework for funding enterprises that no one person would likely be able to afford on his own, no matter how good an idea the effort might be.

Things like legal liability are just parts of the framework to sort out how ownership stakes should be treated, but they serve the ends of helping people combine their resources.
@dcjohnson

@SpaceLifeForm the CU ruling emphasized that it was about empowering actual humans to express themselves, not empowering corporations as if they were human.

Kennedy wrote at length about that in the ruling, though points like this are so frequently misreported/misunderstood.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep558/usrep558310/usrep558310.pdf

@dcjohnson

@anarchic_teapot well, it's slightly complicated in that Fox is a publicly traded company, and so while Murdochs own the majority of shares, the corporation is still subject to normal laws governing publicly traded corps in the US.

Mainly I'd say Fox seems to be after profit rather than kingmaking here. They enjoy their market niche and exploit that rather than push for successful candidates.

For example, Fox support for Trump gets them cash even if he's not the most capable candidate.

@MarkAB @GottaLaff

@fasnix one thing to keep in mind is the difference between the website and the user and content.

If you see the website as just the front end, the interface, then sure, get to the website via domain names as usual. Heck, at that point you can have more than one website serving as interfaces to the same system. That's still distributed even though it involves domain names.

But, user handles and content have to be unique, so you can still disconnect that from domain names even as the web interfaces still use them.

@reiver @laurenshof

@Martin no, that's not what Bush v Gore was about, it wasn't what the justices voted on.

In Bush v Gore the question before the Court was whether a lower court had acted legally and appropriately in interfering with Florida's voting process. The question was not whether the recount should proceed.

The Court found that the lower court had exceeded its authority and thus its ruling wasn't legal.

I really wish more people had been better informed about what happened in that case.

@OccuWorld @trans_caracal

It's a misleading description of what the Court found in that case.

The union wasn't to be sued for mere striking, but for arranging active sabotage of the employer beyond mere striking.

That's why the ruling was adopted by a broad coalition of justices and not just a few ideologues.

@realTuckFrumper she's so divisive in moments like this.

Just really a bad choice for a nominee, she doesn't have the high road.

And it's a really low bar against Trump. The only

@realTuckFrumper I'd say the poor choices to react at all.

As we say, don't feed the trolls.

Trump is looking to get a reaction. Don't give it to him.

@rhys That's not how PACs legally work, though.

The guardian is not a reliable source for news on US current events.

@rhys That's not how PACs legally work, though.

The guardian is not a reliable source for news on US current events.