What you’re saying is that you don’t want to give users tools to curate their feeds, and your answer to them wanting those tools is for them not to view those feeds at all if they feel the content is unsafe. An interesting take. Where on the internet does that work?
I curate my feed. However because of the lack of an algorithm I don’t get suggestions. This means that I (and likely others) scroll through the everything feed repeatedly.
But I’ll do you one better. Lemmy doesn’t prevent users under the age of 18 from joining so long as they are 13 or older (just like other platforms). There’s a reason that most if not all websites curate for NSFW content, and it’s to make what the public can view with or without an account safe for children who are likely visiting those sites. That’s the reason Facebook won’t let you post half nude photos publicly. It’s the reason Reddit has NSFW tags. You’re preaching to the choir as far as users curating their content. NSFW tagging is literally a tool to use to curate the content you see. If your argument is that posters have no responsibility for what content they post that’s just logically wrong. No laws work that way. It’s literally why platforms aren’t being held liable for the misinformation spread by their users. I’m not complaining about random anime lewds. I’m pointing out that they are not safe for work. So they should be labeled as such since that is the status quo for not safe for work content. In the same way that a lot of content related to the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Palestine are labeled that way.
If you’re gonna be stuck on what the user should be doing rather than treating all of these items the same as far as what they are then you’re gonna have a bad time because I’m not entertaining that. I curate my feed and I don’t scroll the Everything feed at work, but that doesn’t mean I think other users shouldn’t be able to.
When I say I don’t have control over that, you know I mean that I am not in control of the feed or what is in it. Jesus. Can we not pretend that I am in control of what is posted to social media? Because you know this isn’t necessarily about self control. If it were news sites and broadcasters wouldn’t get in trouble for what they show.
Then nothing here on Lemmy should have an NSFW tag at all. But you know that doesn’t work. Because you can have a feed that’s completely fine and then scroll randomly and find a bunch of porn posts back to back. If you are posting content to a platform you are responsible for that content and what it shows. That’s literally why we have any tags.
This is like arguing that because it’s legal to show graphic content of war or similar on the news it should be allowed with no warning on any website. There’s underaged people everywhere on the internet. Sites that have graphic content as the main content censor accordingly. Why is Lemmy any different?
I either turn it off completely or I leave it censored. I’m not saying there aren’t options. I’m saying a work environment would not consider it to be safe for work so yes it should be censored with a NSFW tag. The everything tab sometimes is perfectly fine and other times has back to back posts like that. I have no control over that. Neither does anyone else.
I see plenty of memes labeled NSFW. I sometimes assume they’re porn and keep scrolling. Sometimes I recognise the image even through the filter and I’ll click on it. I find this very confusing. It’s not a bad idea to have two different terms. But I feel that that might get lost in the sauce as the term has already gone critical mass. People will probably start to use them interchangeably.
That’s wonderful. But perception is everything. Could the HR lady walk past my desk, see me scrolling Lemmy and flipping through image after image of half nude cartoons? Is that still safe for work? I think you’ll find they feel the same about works of art in enough businesses that none of these images are safe for work. In an art gallery? Sure. In a dental office? Probably not.
At the point where you are offered some other form of compensation, I believe that would be considered a bribe, which is also illegal.
Yes. And to be clear I don’t think this is a good thing. I’m actually very much against the courts deciding the preview of what is lawful conduct for the president within his duties to the Constitution and what is not.
OPP. - Naughty By Nature
Reading even the first few pages would be preferable to the fear mongering and panic in my opinion. If you’re getting a pared down version from Cornell law, fine. If it’s coming from fox news or vox media, I don’t think that should be the end of anyone’s endeavours to understand what is going on.
They aren’t though. They say in the document that they are the final word on what is within the scope of official acts. So it’s not even a separate regulating body purpose built for that. It’s lower courts making a decision and the SCOTUS deciding if it is right and wrong and having the final say.
Those things are already happening and will get worse if we don’t lobby and vote. This has been the vendetta of the conservative party in this country for several decades. They have been taking small chunks out of every regulatory legislative government branch and agency for literal decades with the intent that eventually they could undermine the government process enough to get what they want.
The reason I said “citizens worried about the President signing their death warrant” is because that’s literally what headlines have been saying and I see a lot of those same headlines parotted both on Lemmy in these discussion threads, and in other web forums in relation to the topic of criminal charges being brought against a sitting or former president.
We should have always been worried about our rights. We should have always been lobbying to further limit the government in what it can do against the people. Instead we haven’t made a new amendment to the constitution since '92, and we are leery of doing so and keeping it a living document because we fear all the things the other side will do, and they’re doing them anyway.
I actually think this might be an extension of them protecting their IP. Afterall, the IP of plenty of other companies has been mined for use training Generative AI LLM’s.
I’m a bit bothered that people aren’t going to the web to read the ruling in full. They’re relying heavily on dissenting SCOTUS member’s statements and the media. I’m also disheartened at the number of people who don’t know their rights, don’t understand the government’s functions in society, and don’t understand that the constitution is meant to be a living document that restricts what the government can do, not what its citizens can. Of course the number of people who don’t know what’s in the constitution and its amendments is also very high.
It wasn’t that terribly long ago that we didn’t have presidential term limits. There’s absolutely a way forward with further amendments to the constitution which is something we as a people should also lobby for.
Edit: Speak of the devil: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/
I don’t disagree with that in the grand scheme of things. But a presidential pardon can only be accepted under the understanding that the person who receives it is admitting by accepting it that they committed the crime. As such a service member with a dishonorable discharge would not have their benefits re-instated, for instance.
It is absolutely highly concerning. That said, there’s way too many people who haven’t read the official ruling who are panicking instead of advocating for people to vote to keep Biden in office and prepare another viable candidate for that office once his second term is up. Because the only way to get these idiots off the SCOTUS is to elect non-conservative presidents who can win. And that only happens if people both vote and lobby for what they want. We need better electoral college regulations. We need ranked voting. We need the people to lobby to further limit the government because obviously this is what happens when we don’t.
This ruling, coupled with the whole “Biden is too old, he should step down” BS is exactly the kind of propaganda concoction that will lead to Trump being re-elected in November if we don’t do something.
Do I think this is a way for a President to sanction and enact the murder of political rivals? Under certain circumstances, yes. Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.
You have to understand that we’ve had alphabet agencies for a long time and the President literally could use certain pretexts to kill a person if they wanted so long as they did it a specific way. That has not changed just because of this ruling and that’s a big factor people should look at. There’s a reason former Presidents haven’t been prosecuted for drone strikes. Technically they could have been held accountable in a court of law before that. But we’ve known for a long time that in all actuality the law only works that way if you’re poor or if you’re going up against someone else who’s independently wealthy. That’s why Epstein is dead after all. Not because he trafficked young girls. But because his imprisonment put other rich people in danger. Sam Bankmanfried isn’t in prison because he stole money. He’s in prison because he stole from other rich people. Same with Elizabeth Holmes.
When Trump was in office, I need you to understand that the government (the people who guard national secrets) actually considerered him a threat and limited his ability to do damage by not telling him things. We would have been much worse off if they hadn’t.
As a result, the apparatus of the government is not a monolith, just like the apparatus of the military or even just the US as a whole. It’s made up of people. And we’ve limped along this far because we could rely on them not to do certain things. But what Trump was able to get away with by being elected and being in office? This is the fallout of that.
Your statement that the president can “personally” violate any law without criminal liability isn’t correct. Here’s a direct quote from the ruling “Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.”
On its face this ruling admits there is a such thing as an unofficial act. The problem is that the SCOTUS should not be allowed to make this decision without checks or balances in place. I.e. if they are making the deduction that a President has immunity, they must cede the determination of such acts that have immunity vs those that don’t to another regulatory body. That’s the disturbing part to me.
This also makes me question what the point is of the impeachment process specifically because of this passage from the same ruling:
“When the President exercises such author ity, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions.”
Technically an impeachment is not a criminal trial. But that passage doesn’t specify the scope. So it could be used to argue that impeachment (while not a criminal proceeding) is an examination of the Presidents actions that potentially would not be allowed. And since the impeachment process is a check and balance for the presidential office, that’s not okay.
Because (just like in NY with Trump, and specific charges) if a crime is committed within a state the state has the right to prosecute regardless of impeachment or federal charges. The UCMJ is technically federal law. But we’re looking at three different aspects of lawful charges for persons who might commit a crime per the Presidents order. The president could absolutely pardon the persons involved. But only at the federal level. There’s nothing stopping the state or states from prosecuting the same individual. It’s not just one set of checks and balances is my point. The department of justice can also bring charges regardless of UCMJ tribunal (Court Material). Which is really where double jeopardy should kick in but doesn’t for service members.
Additionally and most importantly actually, a court martial conviction for murder would result in a dishonorable discharge from the military. That can’t be overturned by a presidential pardon. They would lose their benefits. Medical and so on. Pensions. It’s a cost benefit analysis at that point. They don’t just get to walk away no harm no foul cause presidential pardon.
If there were someone would have taken a shot at Trump long before now.
You’re a waste of time. Good day sir, ma’am, or theydy.