Hey Mr. Tech journalist, why don’t you write about federated communities and get off the corpo-web? Help us all out with that big name of yours I’ve never heard.
Edit: oops. That was meant to be a top level comment. Whatever.
I would be shocked if he or his colleagues haven’t written about federated communities and the like.
But if he will have no engagement or meaningful interactions, why would he waste time managing and understanding social media for another platform? Like, this isn’t someone just shitposting. Building and maintaining his brand is a significant part of his job. Same with understanding what people may be interested in reading about to know how to steer stories and the like.
And we very much learned from the olden days that just mirroring the same post to every site doesn’t really do anything positive and mostly pisses people off when they realize they aren’t the audience.
Building and maintaining his brand is a significant part of his job. Same with understanding what people may be interested in reading about to know how to steer stories and the like.
If that’s your full time job then maybe dont outsource it to some random company that gets bought by some random dude…
He looks over 60, so he likely saw all the trans people and rainbows thriving there and his innate Boomer deep fear of something novel and amazing and different took over.
It’s not closed to the general public, any member of the general public can join as long as you get an invite. I’m not sure how to get invites as I don’t interact with BlueSky much, but I was invited by my brother and he’s nothing special on the Internet.
That's definitely fair. I've thankfully not seen that content.
The only content I've found that I care about were some of the more active folks on Twitter that had insightful takes or were occasionally funny like Popehat, Mike Masnick, and Kashana.
Just yesterday I had an interaction on Mastodon.social that gave me pause and made me question using even the Fediverse.
Someone posted about KOSA legislation coming to “protect children” from trans people like myself.
Somebody got in the conversation and had a link to an organization that actually uses the terminology “map” to refer to the people who are more properly called pedophiles.
I shut that shit down, deleted my comment, and am seriously considering deleting all of my Fediverse accounts.
Like, I’m not here to make friends, but I am not opposed to it either.
I am here to be informed, entertained, maybe sometimes outraged a little.
I’m not sure why one comment is enough to provoke such a reaction from you? Especially since I see these pedophiles and their apologists on other social media too.
To continue the previous comment, I want absolutely no association with people that like to play games with terminology like this.
I don’t want any connection with a person that would be okay with sexualizing children, or changing names of the evil people who do it under the guise of being tolerant or pc or some shit.
I don’t want any loli garbage, hentai, nazis, etc.
And that the Fediverse seems to not have any content moderation ( am I wrong/missing something?) makes me want to give up on it.
The fediverse isn't a unified whole. Some instances don't have moderation or have shitty inconsistent moderation. You should move to an instance like beehaw.org or lemmy.blahaj.zone if you want admins that don't put up with that shit. Both will ban users and other instances that do that allow that kind of shit. While lemmy.world seems fine with it, but if you call out their use of discord they may ban you.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is commonly known as "the supremacy clause." In the context of the GA RICO trial, States are not allowed to prosecute federal officers who are exercising their Constitutional federal duties.
Count 1 of the indictment is the RICO charge, which is based on:
Trump and the other Defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost [the Georgia election for President of the United States], and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlwafully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms that the authority and responsibility for appointing Electors to the Electoral College, the votes of which determine who is elected to the office of President, lies solely with the States:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
It is, therefore, outside the Constitutional duty of any federal officer to insert themselves into a State election.
Judge Jones is currently considering, for Mark Meadows, whether all of his indicted actions need to be "under color of his office" to qualfiy for removal to federal court, or only one of his indicted actions, or a majority of his indicted actions, or some other fraction. I think it would also be fair to argue that only the indictments which are "under color of his office" should be moved to federal court, and the ones which are not should remain in State court - but there are surely other considerations to be made around judicial economy and inconvenience or trauma to victims and witnesses who would need to appear multiple times over several trials.
Judge McAfee (GA) has denied Meadows' and Powell's motions to sever from each other, and will make a ruling on severance of the other defendants in about ten days' time. From what I saw, there is still a possibility that all nineteen defendants will begin their trials together, on October 23, 2023, in his Georgia courtroom.
The Georgia charges can't be pardoned until five years after any sentence is served. Nothing can change that, as pardons for State charges in Georgia are handled by the Georgia Pardon and Parole Board, and they have written rules to follow.
That board can consider a request to commute a sentence immediately.
I brought up Meadows because his request to have his case removed to federal court, if successful, will impact how many separate trials happen. If his case is removed, others will attempt to have their cases also removed, and some might succeed. Does that mean that all cases get tried together in federal court, even for those who have no grounds to have their cases so removed? Or do the cases get severed as a result of some of them going to federal and some of them staying in state? We don't know the answers to those questions yet.
My mentions of Meadows, Judge Jones, and Judge McAfee were in the context of the greater outstanding questions about "who is going to trial when, and where, and alongside whom?" from a bigger picture perspective.
On another note if you are interested in the topic, I can’t recommend Growing Up in Scientology enough on YouTube.
Aaron is an amazing educator, commentator, and satirist on the subject of Scientology. Beyond that he has one of the most genuine, yet charismatic personalities of any person on the platform. I can’t say enough good things about him, his journey, and his work with both exposing as well as freeing people from Scientology’s grip.
Yeah A A Ron covers Scientology really well, cuts through the nonsence with a great deal of knowledge about the subject and does a lot to help victims of the cult. Well worth a watch.
Flo Barnett shot herself three times in the chest and once in the head with a long rifle.
Gary Webb, who exposed the crack cocaine conspiracy within the CIA shot himself twice in the head with a revolver. FWIW, Webb’s death Bay actually have been a suicide. The first shot went through his face.
Shelly Miscavige is still held unlawfully by Scientology.
Are you sure about that? I don’t mean that in the sense of doubting that Scientology kidnapped her, but in the sense that I’m unaware of any proof she’s even still alive.
This is why I don’t watch Tom Cruise, Elisabeth Moss, et al vehicles. You can’t separate the art from the artist when you’re literally financing their criminal organization.
My favorite part of this story has consistently been imagining the poor person that has to figure out how to communicate this in so few words. Like, “How should I word this? Restroom mishap? No, it’s not just the restroom. Passenger soiled in aisle? No, it’s mo–” “BITCH JUST SAY DIARRHEA ALL OVER JESUS!”
It happened to the Better Business Bureau, Yelp, Google Reviews, Amazon Reviews. If you google random products + reviews, you’ll get limitless “review websites” with the product you are looking at, with lots of suspicious “affiliate” links.
All reviews on the internet are BS. In the past, Consumer Reports was seen as legitimate, it’s the only one who might be legit now.
My old job bought reviews. We had apps with millions of downloads, and at least half of the reviews were purchased. We’ve had thousands of five star reviews to our brick and mortar stores, all paid for to boost our presence.
Whenever we launch a new thing, we’d have hundreds of reviews ready. Kinda like leaving a few dollars in a tip jar to get the energy going.
The Better Business Bureau was always a protection racket. Businesses pay (a lot) for membership. If you aren’t a member you can’t respond to complaints and it impacts your business negatively. Members can respond to a complaint and no matter what the response is, or if the customer is satisfied, the complaint gets marked as resolved.
Who has ever taken RT as a legitimate critiques site? I mean; half the movies they say suck, are in fact amazing, and their high rated ones, are just Hollywood garbage with some A list names…
Rotten Tomatoes doesn't rate movies, they aggregate scores based on favorable/unfavorable reviews. All movie ratings are unreliable unless you are familiar with the reviewer or read their explanations.
I love the separate RT critic and audience scores. For something like Cocaine Bear I only care about the audience rating, while more serious movies I check out both.
I have only ever seen them referenced to movies I look up. I always see a rotten tomato score and they usually are wrong… I didn’t realize RT is bigger than that
Yeah, the generic Rotten Tomato score that you see in articles is the critics score, and critics are all over the place. The Rotten Tomatoes website lets you see both scores and all of the individual reviews for both critics (with a quick summary of around 10 or so right there) and audience reviews. You can dive into any of those to get a better idea of whether their opinion is worth paying attention to.
For example, if you skim the critic reviews and the negative ones criticize the movie for including things you like, then you can dismiss those reviews. It does a great job of putting them all in one place for visibility.
The new Mario movie comes to mind for me. I don’t normally watch movies, but I agree with the 95% audience score even though critics hated it. Everybody else I know who saw the movie liked it too.
I second this. Here in Sweden we used to have a movie site where they applied some magic to the calculation and presented how you would rate a movie on a scale 1-5 and they were always correct within ±1 point. So fx a 3 could be either 2, 3 or 4 etc etc. While the site still exists it has seen better days so RT had been my go-to site for movie scores and reviews.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.