abff08f4813c

From Meltdown to gagdown.

But I’d add - if someone could draft this up and show me a working prototype, I might be easier to convince. It’s a lot easier to think about something when you can play with an idea.

I mean sure…but essentially you’re using the facts as they stand as justification that it will never work

More or less.

when my whole point is that these facts as they stand need to change because they will never work unless we change them.

I think to make that argument you’d have to first argue that this works elsewhere. But we see warnings like this, https://web.archive.org/web/20221104001618/https://old.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/comments/yljj15/swifties_be_warned_that_this_is_a_fake_account/ or like this, https://www.instagram.com/czaronline/p/CvAts_9MFDf/

then I’m not at all convinced that this is the case.

You can tweet at celebrities, and you can follow celebrities on instagram, and all the other services, but you generally can’t email them.

Perhaps it’s a generational thing? Back in the day you could. Bill Gates used to be reachable at bill.gates@microsoft.com and Jeff Bozos at jeff@amazon.com

On the flip side, just because a celebrity has a handle on a particular social media service doesn’t guarantee you can reach them. Taylor Swift has a tumblr but she hasn’t publicly used it in years.

People keep using email, and domains as reasons for why it’s not an issue, but there’s a reason celebrities aren’t known for their email.

What’s the reason? Two things come to my mind: first, Bill Gates supposedly said he had an entire team whose job was just to read and respond to his public email.

Second, email is direct contact, like a DM rather than a tweet (that everyone sees). The email equivalent would be a mailing list. If you want that, you can join Taylor Swift’s mailing list over at https://www.taylorswift.com/#mailing-list

you wouldn’t want a second abff08f4813c to exist.

I wouldn’t mind that much, tbh. Though considering the username in question, it’s very unlikely.

Even if you don’t use tiktok, you would want to make sure nobody else has the name abff08f4813c on tiktok.

Much harder with a name like Taylor Swift. How many other people have the same name? Even on twitter there’s a different taylorswift - so the famous singer is taylorswift13 there.

now suddenly 300 more abff08f4813c on 300 different instances all pop up.

My username is probably the wrong one to use for this example.

But more generally - does anyone want to be taylorswift@hotmail.com and taylorswift@gmail.com and taylorswift@outlook.com and taylorswift@yahoo.com all at once? (Well, okay, yes there probably is someone who wants that, with bad intentions, but practically speaking it’s kinda obvious that these aren’t all official email accounts by the singer.)

Because if you try to sue one person on one other instance that has abff08f4813c,

But Taylor Swift may not be able to sue the other person - she’s not the only one named Taylor Swift after all.

What I’m suggesting is, no matter which instance you’re on, if you search abff08f4813c, the search should find that username, and direct you to the profile that corrilates with you. And even though that profile is only on one instance, it would make it so if I tried to make abff08f4813c, on another instance, I would be told that username is already taken.

And then someone tries to be abffo8f4813c or abff08f48i3c.

I don’t see any celebrity who values their own brand on an international scale, be willing to publically announce they are on the fediverse,

uh … https://joinfediverse.wiki/Notable_Fediverse_accounts

and their fans can migrate to the fediverse to follow them.

I mean, there’s no accounting for the fans, sure. If anything, celebs seek out platforms that have lots of people to connect them with fans, rather than them bring fans to a platform, I’d guess.

From there, you could absolutely create an old twitter style verification system.

Sure, but it’s not a required step.

Mastodon.social could implement a mimic of the old twitter style verification system for folks who join that particular instance - and those joining another instance simply wouldn’t have the guarantee.

And then threads can implement the verification system for folks joining directly through threads - and again those joined on another instance simply wouldn’t have the guarantee.

And then Bluesky can …

I don’t really see anyone but a commercial company even trying to do this - it’d be a headache - and probably expensive - in terms of the requirements to protect the data used (such as identify card verification).

Unfortunately and with deep regrets, I think it’d be tough. From https://lipskylowe.com/when-are-false-accusations-of-racism-defamation/ there are four points:

False Statement about the target was stated as fact (not opinion)
Publication or communication of that statement to a third person
Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting at least to negligence
Harm to the subject of the statement (damages)

Considering how hard he’s publicly pushed the story as a true fact, I think prongs 1 and 2 have been met. Alas, I can see 3 being not reached (he checked with his constituents who claimed the story was true and a judge accepts that as sufficient due diligence).

And 4 would be the hardest - how does one prove damages (like a dollar amount) and that they were specifically caused by his comments?

This is outrageous. Wonder if there are any grounds for a lawsuit - if that route is possible, then I’d expect the union to get their *** handed to them at the end of it.

This. Exactly this.

I thought the number one rule of being a liar: lie about being a liar. Just how dumb is this loser?

Yes, people forget that not every founding father was Christian. Ben Franklin was a deist, as per his autobiography, for example.

As a temporary fix, instead of service systemd-resolved restart as per the article, you can try this, service systemd-resolved stop

Once the service is stopped the port should be free. You’ll have to do this on every reboot (though maybe you can try adding the command to /etc/rc.local to stop it on every reboot)

Yep, it might be enough to just add that file with the setting set to no and restart.

Didn’t the UK already reduce arms sales?

Maybe it’s time to reduce even more and for other countries to follow suit.

Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters.

Hence why I mentioned an SC decision, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, above. Can’t get more settled than an SC decision - the only way that can be reversed is if the SC reverses itself later or if there’s a constitutional amendment in response to the decision.

Considering the current SCOTUS’ “interesting” interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity,

Would need to see the specific references to the rulings on this by the SC to come up with a fully informed response (and I apologize if these were actually mentioned in the article but I missed them).

If you’re referring to the case that was recently decided as per https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/ then I’d argue that a) this is unrelated to the your statement below and b) is an example where the current SC has disrupted existing settled law.

I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.

And I stand by my statement that it is settled law, albeit with the significant caveat that the current SC could undo that settled law any time the right case is brought before them.

I’d argue that it should be seen by party rather than by individual. So the real lame duck period doesn’t start until it’s clear that the White House is about to change parties. This is much shorter (election in Nov, new Prez sworn in late Jan) and also covers the period major winter holidays (so don’t expect too much to get done).

Came on just to say this. I’d argue that it’s by party rather than by individual, so with the Dems trying to get another term Biden has to be careful not to throw a spanner into the works for Harris.

Wow, Swift broke Orange Voldemort!

It’s doubly so when you realize that far from being neutral, that the NYT board has repeatedly endorsed the Dem candidate since this guy started running on the GOP ticket:

2016 - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html
2020 - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/opinion/joe-biden-2020-nytimes-endorsement.html

Why can’t they do it again?

That distinguishes this case from the one involving the Green Party in Nevada - where they had the right paperwork, but were told by the officials of the State to use the wrong set and then got disqualified for it.

For the latter - usually, if the gov’t screws up, they usually have to do something to fix it (either allow the outdated paperwork that they said would work, to actually work - or extend the deadline to two weeks from now to file the correct paperwork, or something).

Good for her and good on you for checking.

Just pointing out that one can have statutory rights - provided by law - that aren’t outright in the Constitution. You are correct to add the “YMMV” caution - as in theory, it might be Florida’s laws rather than the 2A which give your wife the right to carry. Florida’s laws attempt to implement the 2A but in practice they might have opened the requirements wider than absolutely mandated by the 2A.

It is not a settled matter of law that the protections and rights provided by the Constitution to “the People” extend to non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are legal immgrants with long-standing ties to their community in the United States.

This is wrong. From the article you linked to,

Courts have held “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments to include noncitizens, even including illegal aliens inside the country

And note that this part of the article cites earlier US Supreme Court decisions, e.g.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) (holding that aliens receive constitutional protections when they enter the country and have “developed substantial connections”)

What the article makes clear is that gun ownership by noncitizens hasn’t been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. Some district courts have ruled on legal permanent residents having this right (1)

Others have said that for temporary visa holders, they don’t have the same right (2)

Of course, this is not to say that the SC cannot upend existing settled law. By reversing Roe vs Wade, they proved that they can. But that’s different from saying the law hasn’t been settled yet.

(1)

The District of Massachusetts, in Fletcher v. Haas, ruled a state law unconstitutional because it categorically excluded noncitizens from firearm ownership. The court found “no justification for refusing to extend the Second Amendment to lawful permanent residents” because they have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States.

(2)

In 2012, the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that a state statute barring temporary visa holders from purchasing weapons was valid. The court distinguished Fletcher on the grounds that it applied only to permanent legal residents, and an open question existed as to Second Amendment protections for temporary residents. It ruled that those protections did not extend to temporary visa holders.

How dumb do you have to be to confuse a chicken with a cat?