Just added to the pile I guess.
Oh no. A violation of the constitution, whatever will we do…
Allow me to list all the reasons why the government cares and all the repercussions that will come out of it:
Perfection
I think you missed:
Government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Not now.
Unfortunately, the people voted for this.
Kinda? Most Americans are extremely low-information on politics, and never proactively educated as to how to find that information or sometimes even why it matters. We are the most propagandized population on Earth, our country has little to no standards for factual information in media and several of our major outlets are just pure corporate spin, while all of our major newspapers are owned by oligarchs. Demographic fact is gerrymandered out of our districts, our default voting method creates perverse incentives to elect popularity over platform and locks third parties out of viability. Individual jurisdictions decide how voting is accomplished and more often than not use this power to make it difficult to do so instead of easier. There is almost no enforcement of laws requiring leave from work to vote. There is next to no oversight of our physical voting machines and little trust in tabulation, while parties can and often do purge voter roles between elections without informing those who they nullified. Ultimately most people didn’t vote for this because quite frankly most people don’t or can’t vote for one of the reasons above, something that I missed, or a tragic apathy created by said trainwreck of conditions.
Saying “The people voted for this” sounds logical but the reality on the ground makes the statement wholly disingenuous. At the very least it’s not a statement that can be built off of for a more productive outcome, in fact it functions as a thought-terminating cliche and provides cover for a class of power who continuously work to keep this set of circumstances cemented in place.
Saying “The people voted for this” sounds logical but the reality on the ground makes the statement wholly disingenuous.
It’s not. There’s no other way to have a govt “for the people” than to hold an election.
it functions as a thought-terminating cliche and provides cover for a class of power who continuously work to keep this set of circumstances cemented in place.
That may be but it doesn’t make it untrue.
I don’t think you’re really addressing what I wrote. I’m not saying it’s untrue in a strict sense. I’m saying it’s a disingenuous point. A misleading framing. An uncritical, not entirely applicable, and wholly unhelpful approach to our political issues.
Removed by mod
By some of the people, for a few of the people, and subsidized by the rest of the people.
Fsvo people.
Why are people still trying to hold the new government to old standards?
The people have already spoken. Stop bugging the government and let them do what’s best for them, I mean us.
Because not everybody is willing to roll over and give up.
They’re just trying to get clicks. It’s attention seeking behavior, not real concern for public policy.
FIRE has always been a corporate friendly libertarian-right organization. They post this stuff because they need to appear relevant to their sponsors.
These are old standards. Feudal standards…
I misread that at first as whatever company bullying the Pentagon and now I miss those dopamines. Please give them back
The right to free speech under The Idiot’s regime is fraught at best. Basically subject to his whims.
This regime only speaks and understands one language, sadly
I don’t agree that the government should be able to do what they’re doing regarding the company, but I don’t understand how it’s a violation of free speech.
It seems they’re trying to clarify that AI projects are a creative project used for expression of motion. And that seems like a stretch to me? I don’t know, I don’t fully understand it.
Like I agree that they were within their rights to refuse to do business with the US government, and I don’t agree that the response to them refusing it should be the US government blacklist their company for contracts. But I don’t see how those factors make it a violation of the First Amendment.
It’s more of a 3rd Amendment violation than anything else.
they were within their rights to refuse to do business with the US government, and I don’t agree that the response to them refusing it should be the US government blacklist their company
I mean… you want to refuse business but you don’t want to be refused business?
How does that work?
my apologies, apperently I need to clarify. It’s because that’s a big overstep. There is a big difference between telling the DoD we don’t want to do buisness with you, to telling the DoT you don’t want to do buisness with them. Refusing buisness from the DoD or the Pentagon shouldn’t impact your ability to do buisness with the other branches. It’s abuse of position.
This isn’t “oh my company doesn’t want to do buisness because you won’t agree to give us the keys” this is a “ok so myself and my parent company along with any affiliates with us are not going to be doing buisness with you for not giving us the keys to the kingdom.”
That’s my mentality of it anyway, I don’t think it violates the first amendment but, but I still don’t think it’s right.
