The trouble with this is that I think bots and bad faith trolls can split the difference, passing some minimum threshold of constructive and marrying it to usual trolling behaviors.
The fediverse architecture was built from the beginning to allow instance-by-instance exercise of discretion to mute any systemic effects that could take over the network as a whole.
This was I think oriented toward limiting swarming behavior from trolls, but I think it also applies to AI bots.
Right now it seems that the Fediverses main protection is that it just isn’t a juicy enough target for wide scale spam and bad faith agenda pushers.
If you ask me they are already here right now, but I think it's not the architecture of the fediverse, but the judgment of individual mods that have let us down in this case.
On re-reading that other guys comments, they just make no sense. You are right to draw your distinction, because this thread is being strangely vague on details and trying to encourage conspiratorial thinking without specifics.
That said, I think the core concern can be rephrased in a way that gets at the essence, and to me there's still a live issue that's not relieved simply by noting that this requires probable cause.
What's necessary to establish probable cause in the United States has been dramatically watered down to the point that it's a real time, discretionary judgment of a police officer, so in that respect it is not particularly reassuring. It can be challenged after the fact in court, but it's nevertheless dramatically watered down as a protection. And secondly, I don't think any of this hinges on probable cause to begin with, because this is about the slow creep normalization of surveillance which involves changes to what's encompassed within probable cause itself. The fact that probable cause now encompasses this new capability to compel biometric login is chilling even when you account for probable cause.
And moreover, I think there's a bigger thematic point here about a slow encroach of surveillance in special cases that eventually become ubiquitous (the manhunt for the midtown shooter revealed that practically anyone in NYC is likely to have their face scanned, and it was a slow-creep process that got to that point), or allow the mixing and matching of capabilities in ways that clearly seem to violate privacy.
Another related point, or perhaps different way of saying the same thing above, is that this should be understood as an escalation due to the precedent setting nature of it, which sets the stage for considering new contexts where, by analogy to this one, compelled biometric login can be regarded as precedented and extensions of the power are considered acceptable. Whatever the next context is where compelled biometric login is considered, it will at that point no longer be a new idea without precedent.
Wonder why you are getting downvoted as this is a perfectly legitimate point. Are they just not in Europe or something?
Or who knows, they really could be in the Vativan, stranger things have happened. But I don't know why they would mention those circumstances without qualification that they are special circumstances. Kind of burying the lede there.
Yeesh friend, kinda jumped down OP’s throat here, no? Seems pretty uncharitable to go from their posted meme to “this cartoonish fantasy world of yours”, and then take that even further.
Uhm, are we looking at the same comic? Because it most definitely is making an assessment of the impact of the shooter's actions. What's the thing being impacted? I would say world. Charitable interpretation seems to me to point in the opposite direction of what you're saying.
I wonder if they are referring to this, or to an EU equivalent of it:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that police officers can compel a suspect to unlock their phone using a fingerprint without violating the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
It’s never going to be resolved.
I think it was resolved, but then Johnson got elected, pardoned the entire Confederate South including Jefferson Davis, and rolled back reconstruction. And the south benefited from electoral success by counting the slave population toward their number of representatives despite disenfranchising them.
I don't have a real end point or pin to this thought but there's solvable electoral process things that could change the outcomes. The upsetting thing right now is disenchantment in the power of procedures to affect outcome which (1) in some sense is just an unfortunate truth but (2) in another sense is a self fulfilling prophecy as we lose touch of how processes can control outcomes.
The Millitary isn’t bound by some electoral laws of the universe, they just as easily could have said the vote was illigetimate.
Well I mean they are bound by laws, to the extent that laws have meaning. And responding to legal instruction would seem to validate the force and efficacy of the legal system, right?
I actually agree. I feel like there was a different ethos back in the earlier web that information density was a-ok. It feels like years more usable than just-in-time loading modules and constant clicking through pages.
Sorry but nothing was taken out of context. Your brother's unjust experience being thrown in jail is terrible, but it doesn't make it more right for Hunter Biden to have to go to jail. That's eye-for-an-eye. If what you really mean is Hunter being frivolously prosecuted was miscarriage of justice, you could say that.
But it sounds like you're specifically mad about the act of pardoning but you were 100% fine with him being jailed. You're welcome to edit your original comment to clarify that you support the pardon, if that's what you really meant this whole time.
Also it's funny you mention the Daily Show here, because I did watch that episode. That clip said (1) Biden said he wouldn't pardon originally, (2) in the news cycle context of Trump nominees, Dems could have lost moral high ground on law and order and (3) made fun of the 11 years timeline. It didn't recount any specifics on crimes, real or imagined, extensive or otherwise.
I think it's to neutralize arguments that this is specifically precedent setting. It's actually working within the margins of established precedent, which is the opposite of what everyone is saying, and it's why Trump is relevant here.
CIA starts pushing for regime change
And this is your reason why Biden could have restored abortion? Just trying to make sure I'm following how this connects to the original point.
I had a brother who was an accessory to a crime at 17 and went to prison for three years at 18, and that experience makes me viscerally angry that Hunter Biden is going to skate just because he’s a member of the lucky sperm club. This is
I've never understood the mindset of "I suffered so you should too". The most convoluted example in recent member was "I worked hard for my degree so we shouldn't forget student loans."
I don't like this way of thinking because it's about eye-for-an-eye justice and it's not interested in facts. Such as the fact that nobody ever serves jail time for Hunter Biden's offense.
I'm sorry for your brother, our justice system is broken. But of all the takeaways, "keep Hunter Biden in jail" is to me a bizarre conclusion to pull from that.
The comments in this thread are completely insane. Nobody remembers anything, so let's check in on the history of pardons:
Bill Clinton pardoned actual criminal Marc Rich.
George H.W. Bush pardoned actual criminals associated with Iran Contra.
George W. pardoned Scooter Libby for obstructing a CIA investigation.
Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio who did racial profiling in contempt of court.
Trump is about to pardon everyone from Jan 6th.
Ford pardoned Nixon and Andrew Johnson pardoned basically the entire confederate south.
So if you're going to stand here and say that Hunter Biden's pardoning is a singularly unique, precedent-setting moment in American history signalling the downfall of democracy? I'm going to hand you a bouncy ball and some orange slices and tell you to go play in the corner. You are not a serious person.
Edit: And for the dipsticks here who think a "pre-emptive" pardon is new... Ford's pardon of Nixon was pre-emptive. So you're only like 50 years and 3 months out of date on that talking point. Oops.
That was to stop investigations writ large, it was not specific to Ukraine.
You might as well say Joe Biden pardoned his son for any crimes he commited on the moon. Or for being one of the definitely-real 2000 Mules, or for helping manufacture Covid in Wuhan.
He's pardoned from all of those too. Which means he did them all, right? Biden is promoting all those conspiracies too!
it was also the minimum they could convict him with in hopes to stop the investigations before they implicated the president
Literally what are you talking about. This wouldn't have stopped future investigations, and unless you're suggesting Biden held Hunter Biden's hand and helped him grasp the pen that checked that box, there's no sense in which he was implicated.
That's not something I see on masto but maybe I'm missing something
It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate.
I think there's an important caveat here. Yes, it's not a democracy, but I don't think stirring up a fuss is as easy as citing various wiki editing policies and starting arguments. If you invoke them frivolously you aren't going to succeed at making edits.