Print

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

[Frumple]

So Alabama just passed the strongest legal protection for IVF providers in the entire country. As of SB159, Alabama is now the safest place in the country to perform IVF.

That... seems to be neither actually settled, nor accurate? There appears to be a bit under a couple dozen states that mandate IVF care and alabama doesn't seem to be one of them, and it's general access doesn't seem to be exactly amazing, either. The stopgap bill they put in after they fucked access completely seems to have (maybe, no one's going to actually be sure until its tested in court) unscrewed the immediate problem, somewhat, but safest place in the country is just. Not correct.

I'd be pretty damn leery about it, considering what led the bill in question being passed to begin with. That ain't something that's likely to happen just once.

[Lord Shonus]

Yeah, there's a lot of serious underlying issues that the bill fails to address.


Not that that's entirely bad - properly addressing said issues would take a lot longer even if they weren't trying to protect other laws that they shouldn't have - but it is far from "the best in the country".

[Maximum Spin]

So Alabama just passed the strongest legal protection for IVF providers in the entire country. As of SB159, Alabama is now the safest place in the country to perform IVF.

That... seems to be neither actually settled, nor accurate? There appears to be a bit under a couple dozen states that mandate IVF care and alabama doesn't seem to be one of them, and it's general access doesn't seem to be exactly amazing, either. The stopgap bill they put in after they fucked access completely seems to have (maybe, no one's going to actually be sure until its tested in court) unscrewed the immediate problem, somewhat, but safest place in the country is just. Not correct.

I'd be pretty damn leery about it, considering what led the bill in question being passed to begin with. That ain't something that's likely to happen just once.

I don't think you understood what I said. I'm not talking about access. I'm talking about legal protections for providers. If you want to provide IVF, Alabama gives you the strongest immunity to lawsuit currently available in the country.

To be clear, it has also been a lie that they "fucked access", because they never actually made IVF illegal or even brought its legality into question. That was always a misconception - IVF doesn't have to involve the destruction of embryos. But it is now confirmed in Alabama that it's legal when it does, anyway.

[Frumple]

To be clear, it has also been a lie that they "fucked access", because they never actually made IVF illegal or even brought its legality into question.

I'm pretty sure the IVF providers have a better idea of that than you, which would be why they stopped services in response to the previous legislation. Alabama fucking IVF access is absolute fact, because that's literally what happened. Its legality was brought enough in question every damn provider in the state panicked, and if the legislation in question will do that once, there's every likelihood they'll do it again.

Alabama's put out a stopgap bill in the face of endangering every provider in the state. Calling that safe is blinkered, and I doubt incredibly seriously that any actual IVF provider is going to think otherwise.

[Starver]

[...] misconception - IVF [...]

If it weren't for misconceptions, there'd be no need for IVF!

 

[anewaname]

There must be an avenue for legal recourse. If SCOTUS claims the sole authority to enforce 14A §3 lies at the federal level, it creates the obligation at the federal level for that authority to be exercised regarding the Colorado case. Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not.

I don't think that's how the Supremacy Clause works. If Congress specifically gives an authority to the federal government, that means it belongs to the fed and not the states.

Put your "proving innocence" and " reasonable doubt" aside and watch enough of the court proceedings to form an opinion based on what you see and not what the "news" repeats. I'll debate you about the videos, not about what the "news" said... I didn't see the defense bring up anything worthy to defend Trump and I didn't see partisan behavior by the court. Besides my uneducated opinion, plenty of esteemed conservative lawyers agreed with the court findings.

There was way too much for me to watch here, and it's moot now. Not sure who these "esteemed" conservatives were, but it seems they were wrong according to SCOTUS.

Particularly laughable in this whole saga was Maine's decision, where the Secretary of State took it upon herself to try to kick Trump off the ballot based solely on her own expert opinion that she saw Trump do an insurrection, without any ruling from a Maine court. Now she's saying it's up to voters to "save" democracy. (Yes, that's how it works, genius.)

The supremacy clause does not exist alone, it exists in conjunction with states rights. A state is always going to have the right to bring a case forward through their court system and drop it on the doorstep of SCOTUS to see if they will take it. Always...

Before the Colorado case came forward, I expressed my opinion that the Trump.14.3 problem would need to be resolved by voters, this post clearly expresses that point of view.

The SCOTUS decision ensured that Trump would remain on the ballot. The SCOTUS decision did not disagree with the Colorado decision.

There needs to be an avenue for legal recourse, or violence will become the recourse. There needs to be an avenue for electoral recourse, or violence will become the recourse. SCOTUS understands this, that is why they are leaving Trump on the ballot.

What position of mine are you trying to attack? What position of yours are you trying to defend?

[McTraveller]

Can anyone explain to me just what is so bad about TikTok (or any other foreign-owned piece of software) that our illustrious Congress wants to make a law specifically against it?

I mean yes there's this vague "national security" thing - but is there really anything specific or is it really just fear-mongering about "foreign influence"?  I can't imagine that there is really that much opportunity for data exfiltration through TikTok compared to any other website or whatever.

[nenjin]

It's honestly an attempt to clamp down on media, with a side of data security. It's popular, information gets passed around there, social movements can start there and Conservatives hate that.

Consider that's what Twitter used to be, before the Arch-Douchebag made it information and accountability poor, and monetized it.

[Strongpoint]

Can anyone explain to me just what is so bad about TikTok (or any other foreign-owned piece of software) that our illustrious Congress wants to make a law specifically against it?

I mean yes there's this vague "national security" thing - but is there really anything specific or is it really just fear-mongering about "foreign influence"?  I can't imagine that there is really that much opportunity for data exfiltration through TikTok compared to any other website or whatever.

Do you trust China? It can easily use TikTok for espionage and propaganda. Why should the US give a hostile government this tool if China has banned all American social networks?

[McTraveller]

What does trust have to do with it? I assume I'm always subject to propaganda and espionage.

I can somewhat understand the propaganda side of things, because the US powers (media, government, whoever) wants their message propagandized, not the message of someone else.  But I'm not on TikTok, so I guess I don't understand what propaganda they mean? Most of what I've seen of it secondhand is just the typical people being stupid memes. Is there the equivalent of "influencers" there that are pushing some agenda?  What agenda? EVs are good, Climate Change is real?

The espionage side I don't understand.  What kind of espionage can be had through TikTok that can't be had through much easier means?

[Lord Shonus]

The company that runs TikTok is functionally an arm of the Chinese government, and it digs *deep* into your phone. If you have the app installed, it is pretty much proven that China can get any data your phone has. For normal people, that's not necessarily all that important. For people with access to government or military buildings? The current shooting war in Europe has pretty clearly shown the potential consequences of that.

[Starver]

Even if TikTok doesn't currently know too much about you[1], there is very little to stop the Western-facing version becoming as much a sucking database of incidental and incremental information gathering as Douyin appears to do (directly for the CCP) in mainland China.

Apparently, TikTok traffic has exceeded that of Google. Not sure if that's per-instance, or video bytecounts help, above most of the more trivial infofeeds/sinks of Google's widespread tentacles, but getting anywhere near Google's already non-trivial penetration of our lives needs a lot of consideration.

Really, the problem is primarily oversharing, not unique to Tiktok. And there's Facebook, TwiX and the rest (Microsoft's actually worse than it was, in the days it was largely unopposed in its sector of the market, and I normally have little experience of Apple but I cannot believe that they have not had a lot of the same stuff already in the bag). But I don't think ByteDance has even pretended to subscribe to the motto "Don't Be Evil".


Some of it may be (over)abundance of caution. But there's plenty of reason to suspect that it is not a stretch to imagine strategic surveillance filters its way towards a not-exactly-friendly regime.


From my own past experience in data-security, I'd go nowhere near it. It helps that I don't ever feel my need to shake my bare booty while lipsynching to K-Pop (and, thankfully for everyone else, certainly not to let other people see me do it). If I was (say) in the US government and had a need to "get out there and 'connect wid da kids' over my latest thoughts regarding 21 CFR Part 11" then I'd get myself a dedicated device (and separate accounts/backup contact details) rather than put it on my personal device or (especially) an official government device that's probably tied strongly into officially secure channels. I wouldn't take it with me everywhere, or even keep it switched on. I'd schedule specific times, places and contexts when I'd make use of it (copy across video, if necessary, making sure the meta-information that went with it was shorn of anything not necessary), and maintain a sanitary gap both for security and my own peace of mind. But I'm perhaps more properly-paranoid than others.


The biggest protection that any current social-media user has is (despite everything) "security through obscurity". With so much data flowing around, there are probably surprisingly few "must grab" profiles identified by the owners of the various servers. Where not only is every possible byte scraped, out of whatever collection system exists, but that it finds itself being rigorously scrutinised at the actual desk of who-knows-who on behalf of 'interested' parties.



[1] Often with voluntarily provided information, including making videos that locate you, identify your family/friends/vehicles, whether or not you make them globally visible. Not to mention revealing your rather specific minks, fetishes and 'weekend activities'; if not by recording you doing them, but by letting The Algorithm know that you're interested in others who do.

[Frumple]

Can anyone explain to me just what is so bad about TikTok (or any other foreign-owned piece of software) that our illustrious Congress wants to make a law specifically against it?

I mean yes there's this vague "national security" thing - but is there really anything specific or is it really just fear-mongering about "foreign influence"?  I can't imagine that there is really that much opportunity for data exfiltration through TikTok compared to any other website or whatever.

As far as I'm aware, it's just fear-mongering. Just about everything tiktok can get insofar as data is concerned is already sold on the open market by stateside companies; at the end of the day they're not a substantially greater risk than any other social media platform in existence, and the bill that just went through the house (beyond being substantially unconstitutional and just about certain to get stripped of quite a bit should it actually get through the senate) does exactly sod all about the general problem.

Sho's got a point about it not needing to be on gov't phones and whatnot, but for the love of fuck neither should facebook, twitter, any goddamn app other than things specifically made and maintained by gov't organizations, and on into infinity. Tiktok's not a unique security threat and doesn't actually need specific targeting to be dealt with appropriately in venues where heightened security is an issue.

It's honestly an attempt to clamp down on media, with a side of data security. It's popular, information gets passed around there, social movements can start there and Conservatives hate that.

Consider that's what Twitter used to be, before the Arch-Douchebag made it information and accountability poor, and monetized it.

It really ain't, because the thing that's trying to be passed is neither attempting to clamp down on media nor doing anything of note in regards to data security. Whole damn thing's a grift, friggin' point beyond sinophobe nonsense is to force tiktok to sell to some billionarie shit or another so they can make a buck.

[nenjin]

I think you underestimate the cultural relevance of social media to politicians' plans. They want platforms they can control, or platforms in the hands of people that agree with them politically so those people can control what's said. If Tiktok is more popular than <insert shitty conservative social media site> then there's a counterpoint to their disinformation. Facebook is already captured and is a cesspool of disinformation, Twitter has had its usefulness gutted.....if people took politics more seriously on Instagram, they'd probably go after that next.

Tiktok is owned by a hostile foreign government, it's sucking up tons of user data AND its the place everyone goes for both news and entertainment. It's a trifecta of reasons for them to go after it.

[McTraveller]

I don’t understand why people think news on social media is any more trustworthy than news from any other source. I happen to think it’s worse even, because there is almost no personal repercussion for getting it wrong, like losing a job. Mostly you just have to create a new account.

I suppose that’s the one thing I fear from generative AI: basically you can’t trust anything you didn’t personally witness or can’t reproduce locally. I suppose all the political idealogues love this… if people trust nothing, they’ll believe anything?