from the word-on-the-street dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is danderbandit with a very straightforward reaction to the fallout from Ring’s Super Bowl commercial:
Fuck Ring
Exactly why I would never own a cloud based camera system.
In second place, it’s MrWilson with a piece-by-piece reply to a comment about DHS demanding social media info from legal immigrants and US citizens:
Immigration law is pretty clear that prospective citizens not engage or have engaged in activity harmful to the US or support organizations that do.
So, none of Trump’s companies or associates or business partners…
Social media is a hot bed of anti US and terrorist supporting information.
Yeah, Truth Social and X are full of Trump and Trump officials spewing anti-American hate, including against American immigrants.
Requiring access to social media will help verify the immigrant is not involved in these things.
Except that wouldn’t prove they’re not involved in such things. It would just possibly prove that the accounts provided don’t have such content. It encourages people to create performative accounts. Also, depending on who is doing the review of content, “anti-American” will be subjective. For instance, pointing out that Trump is a convicted felon is factual and pro-American, but the current administration might not take kindly to the truth.
If the immigrant has lied on their application, their immigration status will be lawfully revoked.
Sure, and if ICE identifies a citizen, they’ll promptly let them go and not beat or detain them or throw their documents away and say “I don’t care.”
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Asking For a Friend about the administration’s general fearmongering about immigrants:
Speaking of killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies – just look at who was sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. Every. Accusation. Is. A. Confession.
Next, it’s TKnarr with a comment about shoring up protections for algorithmic recommendations in a world where Section 230 is under assault:
This is where it’d be nice to have a Federal anti-SLAPP law in place. Then you could simply separate claims about the content the platform selects for recommendation from claims about the user-generated content itself. The content is attributed to the user, Section 230 applies to trying to hold the platform liable for it. The recommendation is attributed to the platform, and the anti-SLAPP law would apply to any lawsuit over that. It’d be on the plaintiff to show that the recommendation falls into the handful of exceptions to First Amendment protection, and the judge can rule on that without involving the platform at all. That takes all the wind out of the sails of the people trying to get rid of Section 230.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad with a comment about the DOJ’s ongoing losing streak caused by federal officers constantly lying:
Nono, it’s the activist judges.
In second place, it’s an anonymous comment on our post about how copyright litigation over Anne Frank’s diary could impact the fate of VPNs in the EU:
Because having copyright enabled Miss Frank to profit off of her work; so encouraging the arts.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Berenerd about the administration’s ongoing efforts to make sure America is not prepared for the next pandemic:
They are playing 12-D chess here. A pandemic can’t happen if the entire population is already dead.
Finally, it’s Bloof with one more comment about that Ring Super Bowl commercial:
The only way this could have come off worse for them is if they sprang to hire the remaining members of Queen to sing ‘We will, we will, track you! Track you!’
That’s all for this week, folks!
