The real question is where tf were the journalists while Santos was running his campaign on these false claims?

Too busy playing horse race? Frantically trying to find something newsworthy about Hunter Biden's laptop? Credulously glorifying some billionaire's childish misconceptions?

Guess we'll never know.

Also, if the next president is republican, then Tuberville's military blockade will evaporate, and a big chunk of the military leadership will be immediately filled with people willing to support a republican coup.

Funny how the right wing never cares about free speech & censorship when their side is abusing it.

Anyway loser, this was posted by a voter.

Also, remember there are a bunch of nice 3rd party options for Android, like: Tusky (personal favorite), Fedilab, Megalodon, & Tooot

They've also been on Mastodon since Dec '22

https://mastodon.social/@elonjet

Unfortunately, in "BPA Free" plastic, BPA has usually been replaced with very similar chemicals, which probably cause the same problems.

I switched last year and haven't looked back! For me at least, Mastodon has been a much better experience than Twitter ever was.

Ah yes, you have one 'health board' that was conspicuously taken over by TERF ideologues, which then started spouting junk science and ignoring the actual medical professionals. That totally trumps all the reputable medical orgs.

Which is why trans girls need to have completely blocked testosterone, usually for a full 2 years, before any kind of competition.

They literally have less testosterone than the cis girls.

More simply, a republic is a form of democracy. The people who say 'we're not a democracy, we're a republic' are basically saying 'that's not a dog, that's a golden retriever'.

So you're just making stuff up to get angry about. Big studies show de-transition rates are drastically below rates of regret for most common surgeries, including medically-necessary knee surgery, and cosmetic breast augmentation (which teenage cis girls get, and regret, all the time).

Many de-transtioners are just bullied out of medical care by people like yourself, only to re-transition later. The most common reasons cited for detransition were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%).

Supporting trans kids is mostly just about clothes/name/pronouns, and the only thing they're offered is puberty blockers, which were used safely in cisgender children with precocious puberty for decades before people like you started distorting the facts.

You're just another bigot spreading medical misinformation in a bad-faith attempt to block medical care for a stigmatized minority group, and you should feel bad about it. Shame.

This is exactly my concern, I don't want my online activity to become another revenue stream for meta. If they can put ads next to our posts then we're back to working for free for the billionaires.

He's always the one giving a 'bipartisan' veneer to these awful bills. Here's one trying to end encryption, which he co-sponsored with Lindsey Graham

You are definitely not a lawyer, and the people backing these bills intentionally use language that creates a specious justification for the erosion of privacy and freedom online.

This bill will require everyone to start using their government ID to post just about anything online, while allowing state AGs to censor basically anything they want in bad faith.

The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing hate group, has already made clear that they will use this to censor any/all LGBTQIA+ material.

Here is a lawyer providing a more detailed thread explaining the issues with this bill.

So, the authors of the article irresponsibly chose not to include this guy's very public extremist rhetoric, but here's a quote directly from the press release:

"Today, Oklahomans are being compelled to fund Catholicism. Because of the legal precedent created by the Board’s actions, tomorrow we may be forced to fund radical Muslim teachings like Sharia law. In fact, Governor Stitt has already indicated that he would welcome a Muslim charter school funded by our tax dollars. That is a gross violation of our religious liberty. "

It absolutely can.

Heck just the amount of tax money we know the US billionaires are currently failing to pay (~$160,000,000,000 / year)[1,2] would cover more than 754 Philadelphias using your math, to say nothing of what a fairer tax rate could do.

Idk why Americans are always pretending to be poor, it's the will that's lacking, not the funds.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/23/tax-avoidance-costs-the-u-s-nearly-200-billion-every-year-infographic/

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/20/the-wealthy-may-avoid-163-billion-in-annual-taxes-how-they-do-it-.html

Honestly, I always look askance at 'big ideas' & 'exciting breakthroughs' from places like Harvard, I think the inflated expectations that come along with a career at 'prestige' institutions tend to exacerbate academic dishonesty.

These folks face a lot of unrealistic pressure to 'excel', and generally get the benefit of the doubt because people assume they're the best, while also being targeted by a bunch of shady business interests who want to leverage that position.

We're still grappling with all the disinformation about saturated fat that came out of Harvard in the 60's... I wonder how many people were sickened or killed by the trans fats in margarine and other 'healthier alternatives'.

For background: "The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat."

Linked article

Again, I think you are being very naive about the language in this bill, and attempting to apply a common use interpretation, rather than a legal interpretation. It doesn't matter what the bill says to you, it matters what the bill means for the legal system.

Why do you think that so many legal & tech professionals are up in arms about this bill? Here is more information about the GOP plans to use this bill to censor LGBTQIA+ content.

I think the conversation should be preventing abuse of laws in general.

How do you expect this to happen in the real world? The GOP is very open about their plans to abuse this law, how do you expect to stop them?

im honestly surprised you're using kbin or any federated service with that take lol, how could you simultaneously be for federation but also against it?

This is a silly perspective to me, but apparently it is a common misconception about federation.

IMO, just because you can federate doesn't mean you should... In fact, the ability to defederate is one of the most appealing aspects of a federated system, as a means of mitigating problematic content.

The front door to your house opens, but you don't have to open it for everyone.

Gmail blocks a ton of smaller email services for generating spam / scams / malicious activity, just because a protocol is open doesn't mean it has to tolerate problematic content.

The issue is the stuff I post being monetized by Zuck et al. I'm not interested in providing free content for billionaires.

Shopping for the right judge.

Yeah, it mostly seems like a publicity piece for Threads. I think Threads is available in the UK though, but not the EU.

Lol, ok, I'm sorry it's so difficult. Anyway, it's included in the link I provided above, but the ACLU, EFF, GLAAD and over 90 organizations have sent an open letter to congress outlining the dangers in this bill, so those 'claims' shouldn't be too hard to verify.

I mean, he's a protestant evangelical, so he's not a big fan of catholicism, but alongside his fearmongering about muslims, he definitely shows plenty of preference for his particular religion. Here's another quote from the press release:

"I would prefer we focus on reading proficiency so they can read the Bible at home with their family. That’s where religion is best taught: in homes and in churches, with the loving guidance of parents and pastors"

I'm certainly glad he's fighting these religious charter schools, for whatever reason, but I think it's silly to pretend his motivations are anything but bigotry and bias toward his favorite sect.

wow, that must have been a big surprise to all the slaves.

it pretty obviously meant the rights of white male landowners, in context, historically

Cutting kids off from social media is all about cutting them off from outside information and support. We desperately need a bill of rights for kids, it's tragic how many people are fine with treating them like property.

Many abusive parents already control all of their kids' time outside of school, and for some, the only place to find understanding & support is in forums like r/raisedbynarcissists or LGBT spaces.

Like adults, kids are informed by social media, and if we want to improve their mental health we need to actually address the problems they learn about there, instead of simply preventing them from learning about the real world.

Things like our unwavering march toward an unlivable climate, the malign growth of oppressive, theocratic, authoritarian movements in many governments around the world, the crushing inequitable grind of capitalist culture, or just the ignorant / abusive / bigoted mindset of many fellow citizens are all bad for anyone's mental health, but they need to be understood accurately to be addressed.

Yep, I think the current 'publish or perish' pressures mentioned above lead to a lot of authorship issues, and generally have a negative impact on scientific advancement as a whole.

It seems to me, like most modern problems, money is at the root of this, with both big journals and the 'corporate capture' crowd incentivizing a quantity-over-quality approach to publication.

The big journals just want more to stuff to put behind their paywalls, and don't give a damn about the actual science. The corporate folks like sloppy work, because it helps them generate conveniently errant results, which let them astroturf scientific support for any profitable position, and confound any financially inconvenient findings.

On the whole, I think we're pretty much screwed until we find a way to break away from the capitalist incentives, and focus on research quality.

Do you think that's safe to say? Here's what some of the experts say about the rewrite. Spoiler alert: the problems were not addressed.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you're very optimistic about the bill's authors, but very doubtful about all the first amendment lawyers explaining the legal consequences of the bill.

Neat how you blithely ignore that aside from Blumenthal, a 75 year-old who has been trying to eliminate the open internet for ages, the other author is Marsha Blackburn, a racist tea party republican who kept asking for Obama's birth certificate and doesn't believe in climate change... yep no issues there.

JFC, the tech companies, especially Google and Meta, would love to have a government ID for all their users, they don't make their money on content, they make their money selling advertising, and tracking their users across the internet is a big part of that.

If you're this lost in the woods, and refuse to believe the overwhelming consensus of legal experts regarding the consequences of this legislation, or even the GOP's open admission of their intent to misuse the bill, then yes, I guess there's no getting through to you. Good luck with those critical thinking skills.

In my experience, Mastodon is much, much less toxic than twitter!

It's mostly polite, friendly, community-minded folks, & the moderation is a million times more effective than corporate social media, because the mods care about keeping the community healthy, instead of focusing on driving hostile engagement to increase advertising views.

It's not "sorry you cant work here because of your religion", it's "sorry you can't refuse to do your job if you want to work here".

It's not! The official app is relatively new, and Tusky has more features, or did the last time I compared.

Awesome, thank you! Just wanted to add, the link for kbin 404s, I think it needs to be tweaked a little:

https://kbin.social/m/skincareaddiction@sh.itjust.works

instead of

https://kbin.social/c/skincareaddiction@sh.itjust.works

Considerably more than half of Millennials and Zoomers, and Gen X isn't far behind.

I'm not the person you replied to, but I use Matrix for this, and it works very well for my purposes.

No worries, I was just trying to clear up any confusion! Mostly because those two instances have a really similar name, and are easy to mix up.

I think there were a lot of rumors about stux, because he runs a couple big servers, & wouldn't sign that anit-meta pact, but I know he denies going to the nda meeting, & he announced blocking Meta today, after a big poll.

It's mastodon.social that plans to federate. As the list linked above reflects, mstdn.social is preemptively blocking Meta

Lol, ok dude. I never said he was trying to force his religion into anything, you're just making stuff up. I supported the OPs statement that bigotry against the wrong religions was the motivator here, not high-minded ideals about the separation of church and state, and I think that's been substantiated by the evidence.

Would it be impossible to create separation between sites used by older teens and adults?

Obviously it's not impossible, it just requires sites to obtain a verifiable proof of age, i.e., a government ID.

A lot of pathological optimism in this thread, and it might not impact you (at first), but the document you're quoting explains why a lot of people are concerned:

KOSA would require online services to “prevent” a set of harms to minors, which is effectively an instruction to employ broad content filtering to limit minors’ access to certain online content. Content filtering is notoriously imprecise; filtering used by schools and libraries in response to the Children’s Internet Protection Act has curtailed access to critical information such as sex education or resources for LGBTQ+ youth. Online services would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make political points about what kind of information is appropriate for young people. At a time when books with LGBTQ+ themes are being banned from school libraries and people providing healthcare to trans children are being falsely accused of “grooming,” KOSA would cut off another vital avenue of access to information for vulnerable youth.