this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
255 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

69449 readers
3659 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 76 points 1 day ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Another waste of our time and money. It's a bill to try and force companies to remove content they don't like...or else.

This will be shot down in court (again), and since the platforms themselves will be responsible for removing content, will not be forced to comply. It's unconstitutional and unenforceable, so just a big ass waste of everyone's fucking time. So dumb.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You’re assuming the courts will shoot it down. That’s a big assumption these days.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Show me one case where a judge has ruled an unconstitutional thing is suddenly constitutional in all these court cases. Even SCOTUS isnt playing that game.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

At least two members of SCOTUS are definitely playing that game

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Two members that know what would happen to them if they fracture codified law and intentionally do not. 300 million of us vs thousands in government.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well not 300 million of us, since seemingly every registered Republican in the nation is also ecstatic about tearing the constitution to pieces. And they’re nearly the only ones among us who actually choose to own guns and have the capacity to actually do anything about it.

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Allowing trump to run again after inciting an insurrection?

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Again, not been a court case. If he tries, it will be shot down. There is no wiggle room for bullshit in the constitution about this.

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Yes there has been a court case, Colorado didn't want to put Trump on the ballot because of the insurrection clause, it went up to the supreme Court and they said it was A-OK.

Edit, link: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

When they ruled he has immunity. And in may well hear the supreme courts ruling on the legitimacy of the fourteenth amendment. Then there’s Eileen Cannon.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not in the constitution. That was a Supreme Court judgement (Roe v Wade) that was overturned.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Roe v Wade determined that the right to privacy was in the Constitution (due process clause of 4th Amendment) and that Texas laws restricting it were unconstitutional.

States restricting abortion was the unconstitutional thing which was suddenly Constitutional again after Dobbs.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, that is how Supreme Court decisions work. Did you imagine that once a thing was ruled unconstitutional, or vice versa, that it could never be reversed?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 9 hours ago

No, I didn't imagine that.

Did you read the direct thread to my comment?

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Even progressive darlen AOC voted for this bullshit. You know who won't Sanders.

[–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So how would this work with the fediverse? Like we federate all content...its going to be VERY difficult to do anything if political content creators keep being told to take it down.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It doesnt work. Literally unenforceable outside of traditional walled gardens.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wow. If the fediverse is only operable by meta's instance inside the USA, I'm really going to miss everyone, because I'm just not, with meta.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago

so we create a walled garden of our own.

can't complain if the public can't view it.

someone takes screenshots of the problematic content and shares it? well they're in trouble for posting/sharing problematic content.

[–] shani66@ani.social 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

No, it's worse than that. It's impossible to meet the standards set in this and other bills of it's type without having a shortlist of curated, controlled people creating online content. That's literally the point, keeping people from interesting with information they deem unsavory.

That said, it is impossible to enforce unless they want to set up the great firewall of america.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 21 hours ago

basically only Right wing propaganda is allowed.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago

such as reddit, we already know they have been doing it at the behest of the gop since '16

[–] j0ester@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago

Free speech? What are those?