Van Carter
@vandelion.bsky.social
Lifelong student of politics, history, and cultural anthropology. Happily married. Father. Dog lover. Historical recreationist.
Definitely one of the cooler looking danishes I've seen.
January 22, 2025 at 8:50 AM
Definitely one of the cooler looking danishes I've seen.
The song was in truth written by two men, one was Jacques Morali, he died due to AIDS rated disease in 1991. He was gay. He was the producer of the album "Cruisin'." Everyone involved in the song including Victor Willis knew what they were singing about.
January 20, 2025 at 7:23 AM
The song was in truth written by two men, one was Jacques Morali, he died due to AIDS rated disease in 1991. He was gay. He was the producer of the album "Cruisin'." Everyone involved in the song including Victor Willis knew what they were singing about.
Hm. That I'll respond to. I don't consume alcohol, nor any other recreational drugs on a regular basis. I am prescribed one drug for depression and chronic pain due to spinal injuries.
January 18, 2025 at 8:58 PM
Hm. That I'll respond to. I don't consume alcohol, nor any other recreational drugs on a regular basis. I am prescribed one drug for depression and chronic pain due to spinal injuries.
SCOTUS decision about the Tik Tok law being constitutional on the basis of compelling governmental interest, and national security is? I've never said anything about mail vs. an app? I believe the medium of communication is creating a barrier to our communication. I'll stop first. Enjoy your day.
January 18, 2025 at 8:55 PM
SCOTUS decision about the Tik Tok law being constitutional on the basis of compelling governmental interest, and national security is? I've never said anything about mail vs. an app? I believe the medium of communication is creating a barrier to our communication. I'll stop first. Enjoy your day.
I'm aware of what you're asserting. I'm responding citing that case, including citations that permit regulation of speech on the basis of compelling governmental interest, i.e. national security. Is the speech protected, if it can be regulated, seems to be the question at hand?
January 18, 2025 at 8:38 PM
I'm aware of what you're asserting. I'm responding citing that case, including citations that permit regulation of speech on the basis of compelling governmental interest, i.e. national security. Is the speech protected, if it can be regulated, seems to be the question at hand?
This whole thread, for my part, derives from one statement correcting the idea that this was about data. I believe, it's about content manipulation orchestrated by the Chinese government, which the government argues is liable to regulation because of national security.
January 18, 2025 at 8:27 PM
This whole thread, for my part, derives from one statement correcting the idea that this was about data. I believe, it's about content manipulation orchestrated by the Chinese government, which the government argues is liable to regulation because of national security.
The limits of the First Amendment are described by court cases? Correct? The decisions by the courts are consistent in that sense. A compelling governmental interest is national security, and the courts decided in favor of the government on that basis. Content manipulation alone would be inadequate.
January 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM
The limits of the First Amendment are described by court cases? Correct? The decisions by the courts are consistent in that sense. A compelling governmental interest is national security, and the courts decided in favor of the government on that basis. Content manipulation alone would be inadequate.
I never said I was. I'm not certain where you derive that perspective from? I'm well read on the subject, in the sense of dozens of articles, but I have never claimed to be a lawyer, nor anything else. My only assertion was based on an "If." If it's an intelligence op it's about content not data.
January 18, 2025 at 7:55 PM
I never said I was. I'm not certain where you derive that perspective from? I'm well read on the subject, in the sense of dozens of articles, but I have never claimed to be a lawyer, nor anything else. My only assertion was based on an "If." If it's an intelligence op it's about content not data.
I'm sorry, but the section of the decision on "governmental interest" is dispositive, and along with ownership is the basis for SCOTUS' decision. It's the singular exception to the regulation of speech cited in Lamont v. Postmaster.
January 18, 2025 at 7:49 PM
I'm sorry, but the section of the decision on "governmental interest" is dispositive, and along with ownership is the basis for SCOTUS' decision. It's the singular exception to the regulation of speech cited in Lamont v. Postmaster.
Just read it. The issue here, scanning the decision but lacking both space and time to effectively respond is one of a "compelling governmental interest" that is, "national security." Which is permitted to be regulated according to Lamont v. Postmaster General.
January 18, 2025 at 7:25 PM
Just read it. The issue here, scanning the decision but lacking both space and time to effectively respond is one of a "compelling governmental interest" that is, "national security." Which is permitted to be regulated according to Lamont v. Postmaster General.
I'd have to dig into the whole body of law that covers the subject, but I suspect the government's compelling interest is also about ownership highlighted by continued access to other propaganda organs such as Red Note.
January 18, 2025 at 7:22 PM
I'd have to dig into the whole body of law that covers the subject, but I suspect the government's compelling interest is also about ownership highlighted by continued access to other propaganda organs such as Red Note.
Unless that content is operated by a foreign government against the interests of the state. Because then it isn't free speech, it's an intelligence operation.
January 18, 2025 at 7:05 PM
Unless that content is operated by a foreign government against the interests of the state. Because then it isn't free speech, it's an intelligence operation.
Certainly should be content control legislation passed that makes corporations in the U.S. liable for misinformation, similar to laws in Europe. However, the first amendment stands in the way, because they are domestically owned. Byte Dance is not, and exists at the will of the Chinese government.
January 18, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Certainly should be content control legislation passed that makes corporations in the U.S. liable for misinformation, similar to laws in Europe. However, the first amendment stands in the way, because they are domestically owned. Byte Dance is not, and exists at the will of the Chinese government.
What do I think about Zuckerberg speaking with Miller? Horrible. Miller is racist authoritarian garbage, and the change in Meta's DEI policies after the meetings is appalling. Musk is vile, he has used Twitter to manipulate opinion, unfortunately the 1st Amendment probably protects it.
January 18, 2025 at 8:08 AM
What do I think about Zuckerberg speaking with Miller? Horrible. Miller is racist authoritarian garbage, and the change in Meta's DEI policies after the meetings is appalling. Musk is vile, he has used Twitter to manipulate opinion, unfortunately the 1st Amendment probably protects it.
If you were responding to me? I'll say it again. It's not about user data, user data is easily accessed, it's about content manipulation. Changing discourse by manipulating what people encounter. It's certainly not about privacy.
January 18, 2025 at 7:50 AM
If you were responding to me? I'll say it again. It's not about user data, user data is easily accessed, it's about content manipulation. Changing discourse by manipulating what people encounter. It's certainly not about privacy.
If Tik Tok is an intelligence asset of the Chinese government? It is not primarily about user data, it's about information manipulation, the algorithm prioritizing the content China wants to be seen.
January 18, 2025 at 7:22 AM
If Tik Tok is an intelligence asset of the Chinese government? It is not primarily about user data, it's about information manipulation, the algorithm prioritizing the content China wants to be seen.
There are many members of Gen X who have never acquired wealth.
They still work, still rent, and still have to pay for food. They may have valuable advice regarding those things.
Jamelle Bouie is 37, a Millennial. Generational bias per unit value $0.00.
They still work, still rent, and still have to pay for food. They may have valuable advice regarding those things.
Jamelle Bouie is 37, a Millennial. Generational bias per unit value $0.00.
January 5, 2025 at 9:46 AM
There are many members of Gen X who have never acquired wealth.
They still work, still rent, and still have to pay for food. They may have valuable advice regarding those things.
Jamelle Bouie is 37, a Millennial. Generational bias per unit value $0.00.
They still work, still rent, and still have to pay for food. They may have valuable advice regarding those things.
Jamelle Bouie is 37, a Millennial. Generational bias per unit value $0.00.
What is the value of this performative attempt? It's not "might," it is a certainty. There are not 17 Republican Senators who will vote to prevent Trump from taking office, they don't exist. There are not even eight GOP House members.
January 1, 2025 at 10:46 AM
What is the value of this performative attempt? It's not "might," it is a certainty. There are not 17 Republican Senators who will vote to prevent Trump from taking office, they don't exist. There are not even eight GOP House members.
Envious of your shoes. Those are great!
January 1, 2025 at 2:16 AM
Envious of your shoes. Those are great!
What a great photo!
January 1, 2025 at 2:08 AM
What a great photo!
The Democrats lack a majority in the House and have an insufficient majority in the Senate. How could this effectively be proposed? Wouldn't it just be a performative time-waster? I don't see any means of preventing his return to office so long as the GOP supports his return.
January 1, 2025 at 1:33 AM
The Democrats lack a majority in the House and have an insufficient majority in the Senate. How could this effectively be proposed? Wouldn't it just be a performative time-waster? I don't see any means of preventing his return to office so long as the GOP supports his return.
No. You can't be pardoned from the result of a civil trial.
December 27, 2024 at 3:01 AM
No. You can't be pardoned from the result of a civil trial.
Terrible situation. 😔 💔
December 25, 2024 at 6:51 AM
Terrible situation. 😔 💔