volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@mrcopilot Well it's more of an executive branch issue than judicial branch at this point.

@WarnerCrocker It's the difference between could versus will.

Yes, that political option is on the table. No, there's no realistic chance that the politicians that we have elected will take that option.

@newsopinionsandviews this is the kind of reporting that makes people lose faith in institutions like CNN.

We know that the whole backstory about overturning the election are incompatible with a basic civics education of the election process, and yet outlets like CNN promote the myth.

And so they lose the faith of the public

@WarnerCrocker Well of course it has a lot to do with politics since political decisions impacted the money supply which impacted the prices charged for that money.

@fkamiah17 Well that's a ridiculous perspective, kind of a gaslighty one, since clearly we are not responsible for multiple reasons.

Just not a factually possible position.

@dougiec3 No, that's not how the Supreme Court works.

The court isn't dragging out a decision. It's working through its normal process, this is a normal timeline for it. And you can contrast it with the rushed decision on the election ballot issue to see why it normally takes its time.

Speculation about things like that are unhelpful at best, and flat out misleading and conspiratorial at worst.

The Supreme Court is by design slow to act. There are two other branches that are meant to be quick, the Supreme Court is the counterweight to them.

@realcaseyrollins Oh God no TikTok is the worst.

In fact if I heard that a podcast was being advertised on tiktok, that would be a sign that it's not worth listening to, that it appeals to the same superficial audience that that platform appeals to.

I find podcasts mostly by reading articles and other sorts of reports, finding out that the authors of interesting reports participate in podcasts, and then checking them out.

@avlcharlie

Who's talking about ridiculousness? We're talking about the lack of hoarding, so if he is spending ridiculously instead of hoarding, then he's still not hoarding, which is the point.

You think it's ridiculous that he's not hoarding, well, sounds like that's something you need to work out in your own head.

I would say that it's a good thing such a ridiculous person just gave up a bunch of his money. Good thing that money is no longer sitting in the bank account of a ridiculous person.

So this is a sign that rich people don't hoard their money. You seem to think that this is a particularly ridiculous rich person, so even better that he's not hoarding his money.

@freemo @mapto

@avlcharlie ridiculousness is certainly subjective

@freemo @mapto

@rwg It's not about profit or non-profit, but about the way the act is written today already, it seems like there's a loophole that could be exploited based on statement of purpose.

I honestly don't care in the least about profit versus non-profit since in the real world so often that just comes down to accounting trickery. And it would be the same here with regard to social media.

@avlcharlie

This is exactly my point!

Notice how he spent? Instead of hoarded?

Bezos could have hoarded that money, but then he'd have lost out on the benefits of buying this property, which is exactly how our society gives very enticing alternatives to hoarding.

Bezos will never fill his moneypit because he has so much benefit in actually spending the money instead.

@freemo @mapto

@KathyLK that sort of end run around the democratic process is what landed us in this position in the first place.

It's also just not a very successful strategy. This sort of thing has been tried plenty, and the 1st Amendment just doesn't work that way.

@jackiegardina it goes to emphasize that such compromise needs to come out of legislative branches to be durable, not through courts of unaccountable judges.

It was a compromise, but it didn't come from the branch of government with ability and responsibility for establishing compromises, which is part of why it failed.

@avlcharlie please provide examples. @freemo @mapto

@freemo I wouldn't say it's a property of governments any more than having secretaries operate Windows PCs is.

If that's really what you consider a property of governments, then I don't see what the value of emphasizing that property is.

@rwg in the US we actually have two federally guaranteed consumer banking systems, one of just normal banks, but the other type is called a credit union, and that might have some relevance here.

Overstating for effect, CUs exploit loopholes in banking regulations by operating as exclusive clubs with membership requirements, that often seem pretty lax.

Well, given the excerpts I see in the post, Fediverse instances might be able to escape the regulation the same way, with administrators putting forward a minimal membership requirement so that the purpose isn't international communication but just a place for local members to talk among themselves.

@icedquinn you're misunderstanding how American antitrust functions, as you can see throughout court filings, legislative proceedings, legal behaviors, and on and on.

The problem with American antitrust is that, in part because it is so broad, it runs up against other legal principles of the US government. The history of US antitrust in one of trying to reconcile paradoxes in the law that make it really unwieldy.

We have a government that on one hand is fundamentally bound to respect private property, but on the other hand, is charged with imposing on that same property.

We don't need any conspiracies from rich contractors to explain the issues with US antitrust law. The problem is with the US law itself being quite screwy, in its own right.

@avlcharlie @freemo @mapto