Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

It was, but still-- Refusing to work with google ever again, is a pretty big and bold move.

Google's hentai tentacles are everywhere.

Considering that google pretty much burned them, with something similar to 'you can only dispute the ban or seek further information on the ban with the account that we have totally locked you out of, good day'...  Is not a stretch to swear the whole thing off.

Either way, a cautionary tale for most other people/businesses.  Use a totally separate account to upload youtube videos.

[thompson]

*sigh*

You’d think if you were a giant monopoly with an ever-growing list of powerful enemies, at a time when anti-trust regulators are finally giving serious thought to the situation going forward, you might at least try to pretend you care about your customers. Oh well...

[Loud Whispers]

I think the Terraria Google stuff is in relevance to the discussion of private companies having to much power over us we had a few days ago?

Pretty much. I brought this up because much of the previous discussion centred over whether it was ok to completely merk access to internet services for political reasons; I liked this example because it was an example of a high profile person having their internet service access revoked for no reason, as the dude had not only made no posts related to politics or copyright infringing material, but in some cases like his youtube channel, he hadn't posted any content at all for 3 months before suddenly having everything terminated. This is a useful example where even if you agree some political speech must be or may be freely policed by Alphabet or Facebook inc et al., they have been given free reign to police their users at will for any reason or no reason at all, which is problematic given how dominant their services have become over all contemporary infrastructure and domains of life - work, personal and so on.

[Iduno]

https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/bidens-new-ice-guidance-completely-backtracks-from-100-day-deportation-moratorium-promise-expands-enforcement-priorities/

Gee, what a surprise.

[Vector]

I am so... fucking tired. C'mon, man. Just chill. (Biden).

[Frumple]

It might, I'unno. From what I understand, the 100 day squelch got slapped down by a court, and despite that url the priorities and whatnot are (at least on paper) actually a restriction rather than expansion, compared to shitgibbon times.

Pretty sure they're supposed to be temporary in any case, with changes coming in the relatively near future (3 months or somethin). Plenty of people are extra pissed about it, so there's definitely pressure to shape up. We'll just have to see how it plays out

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Biden is actually, literally letting a federal agency of secret police go rogue because of an illegal union agreement they made with Donald Trump, in a country where the response to union actions is otherwise mocking laughter and SWAT teams even for private sector unions, public sector unions being nearly-illegal outright after SCOTUS' rulings on the subject.

The Democrats always find a way to surprise with how well they hold onto obeying the right's wishes and eliminating any possibility of movement left. Like, this is complex failing. It's multi-stage galaxy brained failing. It's practically a religious devotion to failure and capitulation, as to let the Republicans continue to control executive agencies in spite of a Democratic President in ways that aren't even theoretically possible under the law of the United States.

I'm honestly impressed.

[Lord Shonus]

Public sector unions remain extremely common. The SCOTUS ruling you reference merely declared that "right to work" laws are not illegal. It did NOT make them mandatory. Private sector unions are still protected by the NLRB, and anyone claiming that SWAT teams have been sent to crush them is lying. Under the previous administration, Trump appointees did a great deal to weaken NLRB protection, which is why one of Biden's first actions was to purge those appointees.

[Iduno]

It might, I'unno. From what I understand, the 100 day squelch got slapped down by a court, and despite that url the priorities and whatnot are (at least on paper) actually a restriction rather than expansion, compared to shitgibbon times.

Pretty sure they're supposed to be temporary in any case, with changes coming in the relatively near future (3 months or somethin). Plenty of people are extra pissed about it, so there's definitely pressure to shape up. We'll just have to see how it plays out

Yes, but his memo is non-binding (legally, but is usually tied to funding). He absolutely could have told them to do better, instead of telling them to do what they think is best.

Biden is actually, literally letting a federal agency of secret police go rogue because of an illegal union agreement they made with Donald Trump, in a country where the response to union actions is otherwise mocking laughter and SWAT teams even for private sector unions, public sector unions being nearly-illegal outright after SCOTUS' rulings on the subject.

The Democrats always find a way to surprise with how well they hold onto obeying the right's wishes and eliminating any possibility of movement left. Like, this is complex failing. It's multi-stage galaxy brained failing. It's practically a religious devotion to failure and capitulation, as to let the Republicans continue to control executive agencies in spite of a Democratic President in ways that aren't even theoretically possible under the law of the United States.

I'm honestly impressed.

Not surprising, though. It was the same when he was vice president.

[Random_Dragon]

I for one am pinning my hopes on Zombie Theodore Roosevelt for 2024.

[hector13]

External stakeholders could just be anyone that’s affected by their actions, so it could include the people being deported, and the governments of places to which they’re being deported.

“Could”.

[Vector]

recently-confirmed DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas would issue new enforcement guidelines within the next 90 days “after consultation with Department personnel and external stakeholders.”

who the FUCK are the external stakeholders to DHS gee fuckin' willikers we can't stop deporting people, someone might lose money oh my god

If I remember correctly this is another one of those for-profit concentration camps things. ICE makes people money ...

[Dostoevsky]

"Stakeholders" is a common term in these sorts of government actions, though the actual definition can be somewhat malleable.

Ideally it's close to hector13's description, encapsulating the directly-affected, advocates from various perspectives, etc. (I think the foreign governments angle is a bit more tricky legally in terms of outreach depending on the agency / underlying statute, though.)

Worst-case scenario it can mean "a few chums we quietly reach out to" or "whoever shows up at a public hearing we schedule for 3 AM tomorrow morning in Armpit, USA."

[dragdeler]

-

[scriver]

I always pick Luigi or Toad. What does this say about my character?