volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@MaRY1Fem

That can't be right because it would violate the separation of powers that underlie the checks and balances at the core of the US government.

If the executive branch, through the DOJ, could interfere in the workings of the legislative branch, then it could prevent the legislative branch from holding the executive branch accountable for breaking the law.

This matter is internal to the House and the DOJ has no authority to interfere with them. After all, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" as per the Constitution.
@Savvyhomestead

@MaRY1Fem absolutely.

That's why I seek out perspectives that don't match mine, so I can fact check myself and test my beliefs against what others bring to the table.

IMO, that's the most useful role for social media.

@NewsDesk

Anyone who's been following the committees' investigations for the past few months won't see any mystery in this.

They are to the point where they want more investigative authority to follow leads, and opening the official inquiry grants those oversight tools.

There's nothing more complicated than that here.

@newstik

I mean, I could also pay that to the employee working the Western Union counter. I'm positive he'd accept it.

Just because someone spends a lot of money they don't have to spend, really says nothing except that the person spent money they didn't need to spend.

@DaniEhm

It's a good reason that people really need to reconsider their banishment of "the algorithm"

Algorithms don't have to be bad. The key is to promote good ones that serve users, not to rail against them altogether,

@TwistedEagle

I've never been able to tell whether Gaetz really believes what he's saying or whether he's putting on a show for the cameras.

He HAS to know McCarthy has to answer to other representatives that we've elected that don't support Gaetz's proposals.

I'd like to think he also realizes the political realities behind those elections, but maybe that's one step too far removed from his own self-indulgent perspective.

@chiamaluca

This is larger than Trump, though, and it ABSOLUTELY concerns the voters if they're not allowed to vote for the option of their choice.

If this is a case where one believes that democratic principles need to take a back seat, then the person at least needs to own that position.

@chiamaluca

Let's not overlook the democratic side of things, though: let's have voters reject him, simply and conclusively.

I fear these trials are interfering with that rejection, though.

@Durff

Which is to say, have the US government block ALL Ukranian access to the communication platform?

That's a pretty big step back.

Really, it's a cut off the nose to spite the face stance.

Build up, don't tear down.

@drrjv

@dogcanyon

Well it varies state by state since each state has its own regulations for ballot access, its own procedures for challenging it.

@gfjacobs

Fortunately we can go directly to the ruling itself to see if news stories are accurate.

Hilary Clinton didn't write the ruling, though she was the one critics were trying to speak out against when authorities tried to muzzle them, hence this case where the Court said that wasn't cool.

So a vast right wing conspiracy promoting a traditional liberal idea that government can't quash speech critical of The Man? A conspiracy focused on leveling the playingfield and speaking truth to power?

The case for a right wing conspiracy here just doesn't fly with the facts of the case.

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf

@markmetz

@MaRY1Fem

If you disagree then you're wrong :)

I'm joking, but if you disagree then it still doesn't matter that you didn't write the article, my comment points out an issue with the perspective, no matter where it comes from.

It's good to shed light and context on misleading or mislead perspectives, I'd say, which is part of the value of social media, to push back on authors who are promoting ideas that don't really capture the real world.

@thisven

Keep in mind that part of the story is that with so many "good" users leaving the platform there are fewer of them posting, leaving the platform with a higher proportion of negative content.

But if that's what users find compelling, then *shrug*

I never found Twitter worthwhile myself, so your description of what it is today strikes me as what I always found when I went over there.

@briankrebs @jerry

@thisven

The paid option is intended to make money :)

But to be serious, blue checkmarks always had a vanity element to them, so they were offered for whatever purpose a users wanted them.

If users are interested in paying for blue checks for whatever reason the individual user may want one, Twitter is happy to take their money.

None of that has impact on other options for identity verification, though, if one wants to pursue it.

@briankrebs @jerry