volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@crooksandliars in the clip he never said otherwise, so it's not calling out a lie.

If anything it's confirming the claims and agreeing with them.

Yes, Trump was president at the time that this stuff went on. That confirms that this stuff went on.

@Jason_Dodd between his fumbling of positions on the war and his fumbling of prosecuting Trump, well, both of those guys are screwing up and have no one to blame but themselves, no matter which wins.

@BathysphereHat I imagine it's straight up political posturing, with somebody who is not good at it not really knowing what answer to give.

That is to say, I don't think it represents any particular ideology, it's just a person trying to play politics when they're not good at playing politics.

@shoq Well often enough things like this come down to governmental or industrial regulation.

The per-unit expense might be minimal, but the compliance costs of an additional detachable cord might just not be worth it.

@lispi314

@ChemicalEyeGuy oh ha!

But really I prefer to describe Musk as a troll.
Reply guy comes across to me as sugar coating his presence on social media.

@BlueWave_Surfer@mastodon.social it's also a lie.

That's not what they ruled.

@johnlogic what was the platform statement opposing the teaching of critical thinking skills?

@ChemicalEyeGuy so their apples and oranges...

Like saying the difference between the planet Earth and a cheesecake is that one hosts a habitable ecosystem while the other can be eaten as a late night snack.

It's a weird comparison to make.

@Wikipedia

@MugsysRapSheet not crimes, prosecution.

The court system cannot prejudge cases like that.

@phiofx@hachyderm.io Well it's not so much circular reasoning as emphasizing the critical mass that any social media platform requires to be successful.

It's not really reasoning at all, just the observation that all social media platforms face that chicken and egg problem.

Without social, you can't have a social media platform, but that requires social to make the social media platform. It's just the reality of the world.

@tchambers @gpollara

@Kozmo this claim is simply factually false.

No, the immunity being sought does not create a king who could do whatever they please. Rather it is a limited application of limited existing law, derived from the democratic process, that stands IN OPPOSITION to presidents doing whatever they want, particularly prosecuting anyone they want.

So the story gets it exactly backwards.

We have laws that protect people against purported kings who would seek to prosecute whatever they please. The court is being asked whether those limiting laws apply here.

@m_artigiani Well it's a bit complicated because so many people actually do embrace the idea of being siloed in different instances primarily.

For so many people that question is exactly the way it does and should work.

@iuculano but that's not at all what's going on.

SCOTUS is not being asked to grant any sort of absolute presidential immunity, nor would it have the authority to grant such a thing even if it was asked.

Which, again can't be overstated, it's not being asked to do here.

These source of histrionics only play into Trump's strategy, so we should not go down that road.

@PattyHanson That's not how the Court is to work, though.

It's not an issue of common sense. It's an issue of respecting the law, even when the law itself lacks common sense.

The US has democratic processes to shape the law for the public, and often enough the public for whatever reason ends up wanting laws that are just stupid and lacking in common sense.

The Court isn't to second guess democracy simply because the unaccountable individuals on the Court disagree with the sense of what we wanted.

It's about democracy and the law, not about common sense.

@flexghost sure, but do you have an answer to the question or what?

@KimPerales I mean, anybody interested in privacy should be concerned about Warren's efforts to stick federal noses into our business like this.

She has a long track record of being pretty eager to put federal power over people's privacy rights, particularly with regard to our pocketbooks.

@kegill Well it only blocks the ability to string out the DC trial if the Court takes the unusual step of accepting the request.

Otherwise it actually HELPS string out the trial since it adds this extra step in the proceedings.

@Nonilex Smith is being a bit sensational there, playing to the peanut gallery.

No, this is not a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy. It's a corner case of a question related to executive authority to prosecute in light of federal law.

Basically, Smith is citing the wrong branch of government, and I'm sure he realizes exactly what he's doing.