"Again"? While Hilary won the popular vote, Trump won the college. Or are you referring to electoral interference by other state actors? While I don't deny that it happened, I'm not convinced that had a material impact over, say Hillary's unlikability with the electorate, coupled with her dreadful campaign messages, and pissing off likely voters with her high jinx during the primary. Also, she was a target rich environment for oppo research. The whole having a private and public position had real cut through.
IcePee
joined 9 months ago
Maybe, but it's like the Brexit referendum. During the run up to the vote, the rightwing government at the time swore that it wasn't binding, instead it was advisory. But, when the opportunity to vote again when it actually became clear what the Brexit deal meant, it was dismissed. We had our vote. Even though there was no way of knowing that people actually voted for the form Brexit they actually got. Instead those that advocate for a final binding vote was castigated for being anti Democratic with vested interests and hidden agendas.
If they can do that to Brexit skeptics with all the uncertainty and doubt surrounding that decision, imagine what they can do surrounding a much more cut and dried prospect of Project 2025.
I should imagine the line will be: "you, yourself advertised what Project 2025 will be. You said if you vote us in, we'll implement it. Now we're in, we see that as a democratic mandate to implement it".
Slightly off topic, but I worry that this election has, amongst other things has turned into a referendum on Project 2025. So, the Democratic Party won't have a leg to stand on when it gets implemented in full. They can't really argue that the electorate was ignorant.
I remember similar being said about Beto O'Rourke. In the end he floundered on the rocks of Cruz's candacy.
I was shocked about the amount of content when I browsed BBC's Iplayer service. They even have films. If you want to save some well known movies and are in the UK, you could exhaust their selection before even having to put your hand in your pocket to splash out on extra privatised content.
Not seen this before, looks like Audacious on steroids. A bit like Photoshop vs MS Paint.
I was told that it was convention to use the highest government title that a person received once they leave government. Personally, I don't think that explanation holds much water. We don't really hear, for example of President Obama any more. Nor do we hear Secretary of State Clinton. On a practical matter, it can cause confusion so outside propaganda, I don't see much utility in it.
Translation: Republicans don't want protests contained to one place. Or, they believe out of sight, out of mind. You can't legislate moral positions.
It's a storage agnostic protocol for sending, receiving and enumerating to/from cloud storage. Think off it like email. Email service providers allow for a number of ways to access your email, be it pop3, IMAP or web. The underlying technology is abstracted away. In the same way cloud storage allows for web, s3 and/or WebDAV. Amongst others. And likewise the back end is abstracted away. The s3 client you use doesn't need to know how the data is actually stored. And there's some pretty whacky storage back ends.
Yeah, specifically when you consider Elon's troubling interference about the use of his Starlink during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Potentially hobbling the Ukrainians to the benefit of the Russians.
Whilst the act for which you speak definitely accelerated the bullshit, it wasn't peaches and cream back in the day. Just look at the film Citizen Kane a fictitious (and lawsuit resistant) depiction of William Randolph Hearst. In it an exceptionally wealthy business man uses the media to promote his political aims. And to skew narratives outside of strict politics. A man who craves love and adoration but can't reciprocate. Remind you of anyone? I would say Musk's purchase of Twitter fills at least one of those molds, Trump the rest.
Well the devil is in the detail. However, what appears is being mooted is it will only affect big social media corporations. A Lemmy instance is hardly big business. Not that I'm discounting creeping regulation moving into the fediverse.