Not so sure that it can't be tailored to big businesses. Regulations carve out exceptions all the time based on employee count, annual turnover, customer count (hits), etc
IcePee
joined 1 year ago
Criticising Israel can be antisemitic. Just check out the IHRA definition of antisemitism . Basically you can't say that:
- Israel is a racist endeavour
- Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Say that they use murder (especially of Christians) for ritual purposes.
Not gonna lie, this is kinda a refutation of the whole open source model. I was led to believe that it shouldn't matter who writes the code, as long the code is able to be interrogated/corrected.
Let me paint a picture that, I think is plausible within the law. Trump directly orders an assassination. With it comes a carrot (a general immunity for the killing). And the stick (a court marshall for disobeying a direct order from your superior, plus your name on a hit list). Then, he just has to go down the line with the same offer until someone bites. Once that happens, he will order them to go down the hit list with the same offer. Hell, he could deputise a militia to do the dirty. Not saying he would, I'm just pointing out the outer bounds of what is perfectly legal. And if the Republicans have a clean sweep nothing can or will stop him. Even without a clean sweep, he could threaten the life of any politician.
Yep, a root and branch routing of anyone who won't pledge their allegiance to Trump above all else.
Well the devil is in the detail. However, what appears is being mooted is it will only affect big social media corporations. A Lemmy instance is hardly big business. Not that I'm discounting creeping regulation moving into the fediverse.
Maybe, but it's like the Brexit referendum. During the run up to the vote, the rightwing government at the time swore that it wasn't binding, instead it was advisory. But, when the opportunity to vote again when it actually became clear what the Brexit deal meant, it was dismissed. We had our vote. Even though there was no way of knowing that people actually voted for the form Brexit they actually got. Instead those that advocate for a final binding vote was castigated for being anti Democratic with vested interests and hidden agendas.
If they can do that to Brexit skeptics with all the uncertainty and doubt surrounding that decision, imagine what they can do surrounding a much more cut and dried prospect of Project 2025.
I should imagine the line will be: "you, yourself advertised what Project 2025 will be. You said if you vote us in, we'll implement it. Now we're in, we see that as a democratic mandate to implement it".
Slightly off topic, but I worry that this election has, amongst other things has turned into a referendum on Project 2025. So, the Democratic Party won't have a leg to stand on when it gets implemented in full. They can't really argue that the electorate was ignorant.
I remember similar being said about Beto O'Rourke. In the end he floundered on the rocks of Cruz's candacy.
Even in their worst excesses, any legislation cannot change a deeply held moral position. Oh they can try, but the best (worst) they can do is legislate action and communication.