volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@sj_zero but in the end, no matter how or why a representative votes the way he might, his voters that probably reelected him are affirming that yes, he did right, he deserves to go back and keep doing what he's doing.

We must not get lost in the drama to the point that we forget that we vote for our reps. We empower whatever it is they're doing.

@Rasta @Free_Press

@realcaseyrollins I'd worry that those rules would basically penalize folks who are too busy in life to be constantly on dating apps, which might be exactly the sorts of people you'd want to bring to your app.

I've thought about such things in the past, and I've forgotten my conclusions, but I did think it would be useful to show something like the number of people a person has attempted to contact.

If I know I'm one in three that the person tried to contact in the last month, I'm going to give that much more attention than knowing I'm one in five hundred.

Plus, this would disincentive blanket harassment.

I would always leave it up to the user, though.

@theguardian_us_environment twist: presidents don't have authority to do that, so the payments would have been for nothing.

@mcnado ah, you see, you've already shown that there's more to the story, just in your quote.

@Rasta

Well, I'd grind my own ax some more here :)

The job of Congress is for 530+ individual members to show up and represent concerns of their own voters and build compromise and consensus about what the US government should be doing, whatever concerns those may be.

BUT all too often people are ignoring their own representatives and voting for people who are doing the opposite of what they'd have them do.

Whether voters want their congressperson to be talking about infrastructure or books, well it's up to them, but they need to make sure their empowered person is doing what they want.

The job of Congress is to represent the concerns of the country, whether those are my concerns or your concerns or not.

@Free_Press

@sj_zero copyright isn't a very solid basis on which to make a practical claim of ownership since not only is it extremely limited by different and complicated legal jurisdictions, but those limitations tend to be pretty significant anyway.

In other words, practically, copyright as ownership is a very weak claim.

That's why restrictions laid out in TOS are so important, if they're important to you.

And it's why ActivityPub/Fediverse if anything undermines those ownership claims.

@drahardja

@sj_zero on the other hand, since you're handing them content willingly, without a TOS specifying that you retain rights to the content, therefore they're free to use what you handed them.

TOS can restrict them. Without a TOS, they're free of that restriction.

Don't hand anyone content without restriction in the transaction if you want restrictions on the transaction.

@drahardja

@mcnado wow, way to ignore context.

@ilust606 I know that's common framing, but I don't think it's the best way to describe what goes on in the House.

It's not that Democrats propped up Johnson, but that the House as a whole decided not to change their Speaker.

We need to be emphasizing that the Speaker of the House is not a party position. They represent the whole House, including the minority party, so this was the entire House rejecting the nutjob this time.

Sure would have been nice had the Democrats not supported the nutjobs last time. We probably wouldn't have gotten back to this point.

@TeamMidwest that sounds like two potentially independent ideas, though: could it be that the seeds of war aren't so firmly in language but the seeds of peace are?

For example, war over control over a piece of territory might not have much to do with language, but language might indeed help find a peaceful resolution to the dispute?

@drahardja bad news: any content you submit into Fediverse is basically broadcast into the datastores of any corporations that want to use it.

ActivityPub actually makes it harder to own data. It's very much a public broadcast medium.

@Godfrey642 Trump has been fined.

@Edelruth

Oh, no, that's not quite the argument. Both sides in the case were explicit that not everything the president does after swearing in counts as an official act to be covered under this question.

The issue brought to the Supreme Court is a lower court claiming that a former president can be prosecuted even for official acts that were perfectly legal at the time.

So as often happens, SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals, really judging the lower court, not the underlying case.

Nothing in this case would excuse a president from abiding by their oath of office. Anything they'd do outside of their oath would not be immune from prosecution.
@hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss

@soaproot yeah, so to answer @feditest 's prompt, that's my thought.

Focus on testing against the things that have real world impact either today or in the near future, and that way the "shaming" of noncompliant implementations might carry more weight as more than pedantry.

Or have a separate level for basic vs perfect implementations.

@Orijewnal right, and THEN we can say the trial would have been canceled indefinitely.

So voters need to keep that in mind as they vote.

If the people are so eager to vote for Trump even though he'd end the prosecution--or even because he'd end the prosecution--then that ends up being more of a correction to a prosecution that didn't have solid public support.

But for now, the prosecution is ongoing, and if people want to see it continue they'll vote against Trump.

@Rasta a problem is that we have so many other representatives who are enabling her, and I think they need to be held accountable for that.

The important thing isn't what MTG is doing. She's a nobody on her own, and that's between her and her voters.

BUT if my representative is enabling her, I need to know that as I consider reelecting my rep.

The story isn't what MTG is doing; it's this is what MTG is doing and your representative might be giving her backing.

To just ignore the whole thing lets these misbehaving reps off the hook.

@Free_Press

@mikaylamic see, I go the other way with that.

As someone who works around such machinery in industrial settings I'm constantly annoyed that we aren't trusted to do more to get our work done, and I wish we could get away with just simply being safe in our workspace.

If Tesla is able to get away with a more reasonable balance, well, it's a breath of fresh air to see that somebody can!

@Rasta we just all need to keep in mind that a person like her is completely powerless without the backing of large numbers of other representatives willing to support her actions.

The rules of the House are particularly disempowering of individuals with nutty ideas. That was intentional because with so many representatives the chamber risked grinding to a halt.

The solution is to just ignore her, let her fail, let her look like a fool over and over who has no influence in the chamber, and if the good people of her district want such a loser to represent them, well that's really up to them.

It's only by treating MTG like she has power that she gains the influence to muck things up, and we really need to call out representatives who back her.

@Free_Press

@FantasticalEconomics If you compare voting rules before and after some of these GOP reforms, claims of the GOP working hard to prevent some groups of people from doing it don't really live up to reality.