volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@RabBrucesSpider1 because it's not a real Department. It's just a PR stunt, so once it's not fun anymore you can imagine the people involved getting bored and wandering off.

There's no real power so not much reason to stick around.

@GlennMarlowe we looked into that option. It was not a good one, so we went a different direction.

In fact, that road turned out to be so terrible that it was even worse than the train wreck that we settled on. Commented

@newsmast this post itself is social media playing to politics.

@rhys It's not really Trump shit though, it's their own shit.

If they did shit that would be addressed by a pardon, they probably shouldn't have done that shit.

And if they did do that shit, then they are powerful people that need to be held accountable for the shit they did.

@europesays If it felt like that to you then you didn't understand what was going on, and why people voted for Trump either time, or why they rejected Harris this time.

Kamala and Biden were such terrible candidates that they lost to lying rapist fascist felons. Democrats made a huge mistake running them.

So in the cartoon, Harris's sign needs to be saying something so much worse than cancer that people would choose cancer above her terrible offering. That's how this really went.

@pg1958 Well no.

Executive orders can't go to war against the rest of us. They can only implement authorities that the rest of us gave to the executive branch through our Representatives.

@NewsDesk @TheHill

@RIJim that kind of talk is just plain nutty.

Presidents don't have that authority, and Trump has a track record pointing in the opposite direction even if he did have that authority, which again, that's not how the government works.

There's no sense promoting that kind of misinformation on social media. It only distracts from the real work of countering misbehaving officials.

@NewsDesk @TheHill

@spujb silencing?

@israel

@mhjohnson bans on foreign ownership of things that don't involve speech are completely different because they don't intrude into First Amendment issues.

The government can regulate the provision of electricity. It is barred from regulating who can speak, though.

The law does not apply to social media in general. That is exactly the kind of factual issue that screwed up this case.

And the people's data? Number one there's no such thing. Number two, that's not relevant to the government deciding who can and cannot speak, what perspectives can and cannot be presented to the public.

But these are exactly the sorts of topics that the Supreme Court got factually wrong.

@Tharpa No we already saw that didn't work.

They exist in a vacuum of good information. The reason they fall for things is because legit sources aren't answering their questions.

The strategy for educating them, the only one that works, is to simply engage with them and answer their questions.

@siguza It's important to emphasize that the executive branch doesn't get to flip switches back and forth like that legally.

Everything else has to be worked out in the other branches.

@siguza It's important to emphasize that the executive branch doesn't get to flip switches back and forth like that legally.

Everything else has to be worked out in the other branches.

That's fine, I just want to be clear that you're talking about debating matters of fact that aren't really up for debate.

Block away. But in the end, seems like you're just blocking some information that you don't want to hear.

Yes, we can absolutely see for ourselves that these rockets are being launched and they are being developed. I don't know why you're fighting that so strongly.

@jazzilla as others seem to have said, The difference is that this is fundamentally different because our elected representatives passed a law specifically targeting TikToc.

This isn't mere harassment from the government that might be legal, if that's what you're talking about. This is a specific law signed by the president with the specific intention recognized by the courts to shutter this one platform as it exists today.

To me that's a striking difference. It's not a general law about how things should work, it was a targeted piece of legislation specifically trying to take down this company because it had connections to a specific other country.

@PamelaDrew @gabriel

@tekkie Well more importantly we should return to the old norm where we recognized that there can be multiple name server systems, and end users can subscribe to whichever they want to.

The problem is that we recognize a single DNS. And part of that problem is legal recognition of a single DNS. That was a really screwed up legal conclusion, it was wrong, and I sure wish we could fix it.

@janantos

@jgobble prosecutorial discretion.

But also the law does give the president some flexibility.

The law itself is a mess, and the the legal activity around the law only makes it messier.

We should stop reelecting the type of lawmakers that write this sort of law, that give presidents this amount of discretion.

@mastodonmigration again: time has told! You can pull up the information right now and see it if you care.

There is no debate here.

@pdiff1 @sundogplanets

@gabriel Oh it's definitely a something burger.

Between the politics and power shown by the incoming administration through the long-lasting legal consequences of the Supreme Court ruling, this has some serious indirect effects.

@Jigsaw_You keep in mind that a lot of people who would buy this kind of thing (and do buy this kind of thing) are paying money just to be involved.

It's not really about investment to those people, it's just basically a price of admission. So they get exactly the value that they expect.

It's like paying to attend the super bowl: not something I would care to do, but if they want to pay that money to be a part of it, well they get what they want.