Good riddance, though a plane crash seems like a relatively easy way to “kill” someone while they go into hiding.

I thought it was pretty when it was novel, but it’s been around long enough now that it just kind of blends in. I think it’s still a nice clean design, but not really eye catching anymore.

Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.

I wonder who scores better?

I get why people do it, but man do I hate the glorification of Sherman when it comes to addressing Confederates southern conservatives.

He used the same tactics that he used against the Confederacy against the Native Americans, to vile ends.

https://www.history.com/news/shermans-war-on-native-americans?cmpid=FACEBOOK_FBPAGE__20181210&linkId=60909388

In this case the article states Meta did not comply with the requests and responded to the FBI with concerns about the accounts being flagged. It also states that Meta was not pressured to comply with the requests.

I think this is a tricky situation. It’s in the interest of social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation on their platforms. When that misinformation is coming from state actors (e.g. Russia) it’s not uncommon for the US Government to have the best knowledge of those efforts. It follows that the social media company would want to consult with the US Government to improve their efforts. But the US Government obviously also has its own interests and biases that can very easily corrupt those efforts.

There has been cases (as pointed out in the last court case) where I think the government did cross the line from advisory to directive. I think that’s a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed.

IMO the answer to this is a bit of a one-way communication and transparency. The US Government should keep a publicly accessible database of what it believes to be misinformation efforts including posts, accounts, etc. Third parties can audit that DB and conduct their own reviews. It would then be up to them whether or not to use that information to aid their own efforts. The public can also review that information and they (and the media) can point out the flaws and mistakes they believe are being made.

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can’t I eat a person?!

I don’t think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone’s property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.

The major question doctrine acts as a “get-out-of-text-free card” that conservative justices make “magically appear” whenever they see an executive branch policy that goes against their ideological “goals,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent in the 2022 case of West Virginia v. EPA.

Apparently legislating from the bench is fine for Conservatives as long as you make up your own judicial doctrine as justification.

I don’t know how we fix the problems we face. The court is seated by politicians, Congress is seated by grifters and ideologues, and the people are too defeated/controlled to make meaningful changes.

I’m not sure what could be done. It’s an executive order, not a bill, and it’s scope is fairly limited. It doesn’t create any new powers, just uses what’s outlined in the HEROES Act to reduce the burden of student loans. Since it’s an executive order the next President could revoke it, but the cancelled amounts can’t be brought back so that would just wipe away the changes to how interest is handled.

This is just bizarre…what’s the goal here? Putin already declared their acts as treason, how can he let this go unpunished? Is the Russian state really so weak that they have to forgive literal treason just to maintain power? What did Prigozhin gain from this? What about Kadyrov’s movement towards Rostov, does he stand down as well? Was this all a weird performance?

Just…bizarre.

It’s pretty incredible how out of step Alito and Thomas seem to be even with the other conservative justices. Anytime there’s a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling you can almost guarantee they’ll be writing the dissent.