Why is that a worrying attitude?

Because it seems to be pointed in the direction of a civil war and an end to the US republic

He DOES represent the evils they’ve been espousing, and they are laying down and doing fuck all about it except paving him a clear path.

What do you think should be done instead?

So… they are criticizing her for not trying to overthrow democracy? Like trying to pull a coup would have been the only rational, non-hypocritical response here? What a worrying attitude

Hm, worrying. I wonder what the gap might be, like what could make an adult citizen not a ‘qualified elector’

I am pretty sure those voting rights are also guaranteed by the federal constitution, so probably not

To collect logs for an IRC server you need to set up a client that will always be on and connected, otherwise you will only have logs from when you had the program turned on. You can’t view logs from before you were doing that, unless someone else shares them with you. IRC servers don’t publish their internal logs normally.

Are there people lurking IRC just collecting logs, sure. But that also goes for everything else. If you delete this comment, there are people out there who will still have a copy, it’s not that hard. It will likely be on Internet Archive too.

Everything publicly put on the internet is permanently logged if someone decides to log it, that applies to every modern website or chat software.

And it’s arguably in the process of dying itself right now, in quality if not in user count yet.

True, although most wealth is held in the form of things other than money, which represent a legal right to power over various things, like who can live in what house, and what thousands of people at a company will spend their time working on.

If you are saying they will privatize elections somehow as a loophole around following the constitution, I am skeptical

?

19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Only about a century old. Let’s go for another 100.

If other people are also immortal, the awkwardness of all of them eventually becoming your exes

IMO the most valid argument is that there are way more people making a middling income than people making a high income, so any reduction in taxes for those people would need a proportionally much larger increase in the upper brackets to maintain the same level of tax revenue, if it’s possible to make the numbers work at all depending on how much of a tax break you want to give. The minimum amount to be taxed is set based on where the tail end of the bell curve is, the number of people who are poor enough not to be taxed is small.

Of course there’s also the fact that the richest people don’t get their money from having a job at all, it’s all in investments, so messing with income tax rates doesn’t even affect them.

Nice, how do we make it happen?

The biggest reason that is often overlooked is wealth inequality. The rich keep accumulating wealth, and real estate is a scarce form of wealth that holds value, produces a return, and can be accumulated. It probably accelerated recently because of the large amount of money that was dumped into the system around covid; that was yet another opportunity for the wealthy to grab a bigger share of the pie.

If things keep going this way, we’re going to get into a situation where regular people don’t own houses anymore, and rent is a much larger percentage of your income.

a few dozen, mostly hexbear users. Though that was mostly from when I started using Lemmy, I haven’t felt the need to block anyone in a long time. My list of blocked communities is much larger.

A text message app with a keyword blocking feature is very useful to have

I guess there are probably a lot of people trading that stuff dumb enough to be networking on facebook and instagram with their real identities

do they need to? I don’t think so.

Why not? How can you be sure that all these laws are going to be about all the same things and not have many tricky edge cases? What would keep them from being like that? Again, these laws give unique rights to residents of their respective states to make particular demands of websites, and they aren’t copy pastes of each other. There’s no documented ‘best practices’ that is guaranteed to encompass all of them.

they don’t want this solution, however, but in my understanding instead to force every state to have weaker privacy laws

I can’t speak to what they really want privately, but in the industry letter linked in the article, it seems that the explicit request is something like a US equivalent of the GDPR:

A national privacy law that is clear and fair to business and empowering to consumers will foster the digital ecosystem necessary for America to compete.

To me that seems like a pretty sensible thing to be asking for; a centrally codified set of practices to avoid confusion and complexity.

The listing notes that special operations troops “will use this capability to gather information from public online forums,” with no further explanation of how these artificial internet users will be used.

Any chance that’s the real reason and not just a flimsy excuse? What kind of information would you even need a fake identity to gather from a public forum?