StrangePackage
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,648
Again, I question if this is a migration of real people, or if this is dead Internet theory at play.
SCOTUS Catch-all |
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 484
- Views: 18K
- Politics
4thgenheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,490
some of both. i know people who are now using red note. some of them understand how/why it doesn't really make sense, some don't.
i've also seen a lot of people on tiktok encouraging everyone to flee to bluesky and snapchat, they don't have the same functionality as tiktok but they aren't controlled by zuckerberg or musk. the snapchat people in particular have reportedly told zuckerberg to kick rocks multiple times and that they won't sell to him at any price.
social media is a pox on our society.
- Messages
- 3,188
Feels like this is pointedly timed to coincide with the tiktok ban. (DJI is a Chinese company)
gizmodo.com
DJI Stops Automatically Blocking Drone Flights Over Airports and Military Bases
"The geofencing system was created as a voluntary built-in safety feature," the company writes.
gizmodo.com
- Messages
- 23,374
Is it me, or does that seem to reinforce the point being made about the dangers of relying on Chinese products and tech?Feels like this is pointedly timed to coincide with the tiktok ban. (DJI is a Chinese company)
DJI Stops Automatically Blocking Drone Flights Over Airports and Military Bases
"The geofencing system was created as a voluntary built-in safety feature," the company writes.
- Messages
- 3,188
true
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,448
I have a DJI drone. Bought it back in 2016 or 2017 before I understood the potential national security risk that they present. Never flew it much anyway. I thought about selling it in the past but decided I'd rather keep it grounded. Will definitely buy American-made should I get the itch for another drone.Feels like this is pointedly timed to coincide with the tiktok ban. (DJI is a Chinese company)
DJI Stops Automatically Blocking Drone Flights Over Airports and Military Bases
"The geofencing system was created as a voluntary built-in safety feature," the company writes.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,137
SCOTUS adjacent media news:
Oh shit. Things like that don't normally happen to Supreme Court litigators. Whoa.
How much gambling did he do? He should have been pulling at least seven figures, even as a Supreme Court lawyer.
- Messages
- 23,374
Right? Sounds like .. A LOT
SCOTUS adjacent media news:
Tom was actually a debater at UNC, a really really good one. He graduated a year before I started Grad School at UNC (I coached the debate team as a grad assistant, so I just missed coaching him).
Last edited:
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,803
Absolutely. And the same issues should be considered for a lot of inexpensive IoT devices.
- Messages
- 1,015
SCOTUS upholds the TikTok ban law:
(Gift link)
www.nytimes.com
(Gift link)
Supreme Court Rules on Potential TikTok Ban: Live Updates and What’s Next
The decision came a week after the justices heard a First Amendment challenge to a law aimed at the wildly popular short-form video platform used by 170 million Americans that the government fears could be influenced by China.
Always interesting to learn people's backgrounds on here. I didn't debate in college, but I considered going to Wake Forest and joining their debate squad. I assume you knew Ross Smith? I went to the WFU debate camp when I was in high school each summer.
Nice! Yeah, Ross was an amazing guy. And the Wake squad was topnotch. My debate partner in college coached there for a long time. We would arrange "scrimmages" before the season started. They were usually better than us.
I went to the WFU workshop the summer before my senior year in high school (87). It was a mindblowing learning experience. It is what convinced me to debate in college.
I would have been there in 87, but as a rising high school sophomore I was new to debate. Worked my way up to first lab going into my senior year in 1989. Really enjoyed the experience and was great prep for the year. I can't get my kids to join the NFL (Double Ruby here, but I racked up points in extemp, HI, DI and even prose and poetry lol). My senior year of high school I didn't really have a regular policy partner so I dabbled a bit. I have a ton of respect for those who debated in college.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,137
I can't stand this Supreme Court. They manage to get silly things wrong, even in otherwise innocuous decisions. Right or wrong, this TikTok case will not change the law. It was unanimous, so it's not just the right-wingers this time. And maybe the problem is that it was issued on such an expedited basis, but anyway, here's a passage:
Petitioners argue that the Act is content based on its face because it excludes from the definition of “covered company” any company that operates an application “whoseprimary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.”§2(g)(2)(B); see Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–656, pp. 26–27 (Brief for TikTok); Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–657,p. 26 (Brief for Creator Petitioners). We need not decide whether that exclusion is content based. The question before the Court is whether the Act violates the First Amendment as applied to petitioners.
This is nonsense. Every as-applied challenge necessarily includes a facial challenge, because if the law is unconstitutional on its face, it can't be applied against anyone. The as-applied challenge typically focuses on factors specific to plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs there are not trying to prove that it is invalid in all applications. But if it is, the as-applied challenge has to succeed.
So to determine whether the law is content-neutral, we have to look at the face of the statute. And if there is an exclusion there, the law is content based based on reams of recent Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, even as-applied challengers get to argue that the law is under-inclusive, because under-inclusivity is relevant for assessing the strength of the state interest. If the state says, "we're making X illegal because it does bad stuff, unless it's X in the form of A, B, C, D, E or F in which case it's fine," then the presence of those exclusions casts doubt on whether X is actually that harmful and/or whether the legislators' intent was really to address that bad stuff. This isn't always a good argument, but it's always available.
The idea that you can judge a statute as being underinclusive or content-based **as applied to** the plaintiffs is just lunacy. It makes no sense. First, if the law is being enforced against a plaintiff, which is the only reason the plaintiff would be in court, then it's not under-inclusive relative to that plaintiff and that passage above would obliterate under-inclusiveness review. And the same is more or less true for a content-neutral or content-based determination, though it's not quite as clear-cut. For present purposes, it suffices to say that tiktok is in court because it doesn't meet one of the exclusions. So it is content-based as applied to tiktok.
The rest of the paragraph tries to clean up this mess, and I suppose it makes the claim above look less obviously foolish. But it doesn't answer these objections.
Compared to what the Supreme Court has been doing, this is tiddlywinks -- but it's frustrating because the Supreme Court is supposed to be better than this. Supreme Court opinions should include zero statements that a guy like me can read and think, "that's obviously false." Sigh.
Petitioners argue that the Act is content based on its face because it excludes from the definition of “covered company” any company that operates an application “whoseprimary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.”§2(g)(2)(B); see Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–656, pp. 26–27 (Brief for TikTok); Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–657,p. 26 (Brief for Creator Petitioners). We need not decide whether that exclusion is content based. The question before the Court is whether the Act violates the First Amendment as applied to petitioners.
This is nonsense. Every as-applied challenge necessarily includes a facial challenge, because if the law is unconstitutional on its face, it can't be applied against anyone. The as-applied challenge typically focuses on factors specific to plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs there are not trying to prove that it is invalid in all applications. But if it is, the as-applied challenge has to succeed.
So to determine whether the law is content-neutral, we have to look at the face of the statute. And if there is an exclusion there, the law is content based based on reams of recent Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, even as-applied challengers get to argue that the law is under-inclusive, because under-inclusivity is relevant for assessing the strength of the state interest. If the state says, "we're making X illegal because it does bad stuff, unless it's X in the form of A, B, C, D, E or F in which case it's fine," then the presence of those exclusions casts doubt on whether X is actually that harmful and/or whether the legislators' intent was really to address that bad stuff. This isn't always a good argument, but it's always available.
The idea that you can judge a statute as being underinclusive or content-based **as applied to** the plaintiffs is just lunacy. It makes no sense. First, if the law is being enforced against a plaintiff, which is the only reason the plaintiff would be in court, then it's not under-inclusive relative to that plaintiff and that passage above would obliterate under-inclusiveness review. And the same is more or less true for a content-neutral or content-based determination, though it's not quite as clear-cut. For present purposes, it suffices to say that tiktok is in court because it doesn't meet one of the exclusions. So it is content-based as applied to tiktok.
The rest of the paragraph tries to clean up this mess, and I suppose it makes the claim above look less obviously foolish. But it doesn't answer these objections.
Compared to what the Supreme Court has been doing, this is tiddlywinks -- but it's frustrating because the Supreme Court is supposed to be better than this. Supreme Court opinions should include zero statements that a guy like me can read and think, "that's obviously false." Sigh.
- Messages
- 1,531
Temu seems to me to definitely need banning. You can buy nearly anything illegal or illicit on there and they brazenly violate every trademark, copyright, etc.