internet gryphon. admin of Beehaw, mostly publicly interacting with people. nonbinary. they/she
(oh, and that doesn’t even touch on Reid Hoffman and George Soros backing Wikler with a fucking PAC for an insider-baseball race like this)
i mean no offense but if we’re worried about the “Democratic establishment” it should probably give people pause that the vast majority of Democratic establishment leadership supported Ben Wikler, while the majority of Ken Martin’s support was from the “grassroots” state party infrastructure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Democratic_National_Committee_chairmanship_election#Endorsements
Dick Durbin, Senate Minority Whip (2005–2007, 2015–2021, 2025–present) from Illinois (1997–present)[66]
Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader (2017–2021, 2025–present) from New York (1999–present)[69]
Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader (2023–present) from NY-08 (2013–present)[70]
Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (2007–2011, 2019–2023) from CA-11 (1987–present)[72]
(also, there is literally no ideological difference between most of these people. do you think Ben Wikler for example is pro-DSA? lol)
this is not the place to be litigating this.
the tendency to just post bills that have been introduced without context is frustrating; actual reporting on the subject makes it clear this is not going to pass and even other Republican lawmakers are deeply skeptical of its legality and constitutionality (because it’s neither):
House Rep. Jansen Owen, R-Poplarville, vice chairman of the Judiciary B committee (one of two House committees that the bill has been referred to), expressed deep skepticism about Keen’s bill.
“I’m concerned about the constitutionality of some of those provisions,” he told the Mississippi Free Press on Jan. 24.
The Republican lawmaker explained that he had not personally reviewed the bill, but he stressed that determining the legality of immigrants was above the jurisdiction of the state to begin with.
“That’s within the purview of the federal government,” he said, adding he supports local law enforcement referring detainees to federal immigration services. But “the state doesn’t need to get in the business of enforcing federal immigration law,” he concluded.
this is to say nothing of bounty hunters, who would actually enforce the law and have not been consulted on this bill because it’s not serious. the primary value of the bill is earned media stochastic terrorism, which is aided by posting it without this context. (this is an issue with trans-related bills too and has been for years.) please don’t aid in that–contextualizing this stuff is especially important now that organizations and people might need to triage their battles.
it’s very funny because at the absolute most this maybe saves like, what, two steps in the best case? AI is so bad at this stuff that you have to human-edit it into something that looks good most of the time anyways
take a week off, you were told the issue politely and this is not an acceptable way to respond
the cowardice here is really almost entirely the DEA’s; unfortunately, there is a laborious process that stuff like this is obliged to go through, and the DEA have been dragging their feet on every part of that process almost three years now (which is when the study of rescheduling began). this has even and increasingly been against the recommendations of other government agencies, because apparently we stuff all of our drug conservatives in the agency now
Kind of annoying to have to click the damned link if the text can just be in the body of the post. What, do you work for PC gamer?
no offense but why are you on a link aggregator (and a clone of Reddit in particular) if you’re averse to clicking links? that’s literally the point of this form of social media: emphasis on sharing interesting links from other places, with the expectation that you’ll follow them.
in any case we strongly discourage the practice of copying the entire article because it’s technically copyright infringement, we generally expect people to actually engage with what’s posted instead of drive-by commenting, and it’s just generally bad form to rob writers of attention and click-throughs for their work.
Now, we have actual data about the impact of the law. The Shift Project took a comprehensive look at the impact that the new law had on California’s fast food industry between April 2024, when the law went into effect, and June 2024. The Shift Project specializes in surveying hourly workers working for large firms. As a result, it has “large samples of covered fast food workers in California as well as comparison workers in other states and in similar industries; and of having detailed measurement of wages, hours, staffing, and other channels of adjustment.”
Despite the dire warnings from the restaurant industry and some media reports, the Shift Project’s study did “not find evidence that employers turned to understaffing or reduced scheduled work hours to offset the increased labor costs.” Instead, “weekly work hours stayed about the same for California fast food workers, and levels of understaffing appeared to ease.” Further, there was “no evidence that wage increases were accompanied by a reduction in fringe benefits… such as health or dental insurance, paid sick time, or retirement benefits.”
Also, this post says we can discuss it, but you’re already deleting comments you don’t like!
i’m removing your comments because you don’t know what you’re talking about–and your reply here, which is similarly nonsensical, does not make me less likely to continue doing this.
it would be unfortunate if this were true, but luckily the moratorium started four days after the election result happened so you’re just making up a guy to get mad about.
How would they even enforce this if the site is hosted in a different state or even country?
you’re asking a question they don’t care about, which is the first problem here. the purpose is not to have a legally bulletproof regulation, but to cast doubt on the ability of websites like this to operate in Texas without incurring liability and thereby force them to block users from the state or another such action. this is also how most abortion restrictions work in practice: they muddy the water on what is legal, so risk-averse entities or entities without the revenue to fight back simply avoid doing/facilitating the practice in a given jurisdiction or completely move out of state.
is this dubiously legal? yeah, obviously. but it doesn’t matter if you don’t have the money to pay a lawyer. and the vast majority of these sorts of websites obviously don’t–they’d likely need someone to represent them pro bono, which is not likely.
it’s unclear how many votes either of these measures would have, but once session begins next year there’s really no check besides themselves (and maybe a lower-level court) for what Texas Republicans can pass.
i mean if Roblox is any indication, Valve will probably bend the knee sooner or later. government scrutiny is obliging them to make changes and actually do even basic moderation over there:
The fast-growing children’s gaming platform Roblox is to hand parents greater oversight of their children’s activity and restrict the youngest users from the more violent, crude and scary content after warnings about child grooming, exploitation and sharing of indecent images.
The moves comes after a short-seller last month alleged it had found child sexual abuse content, sex games, violent content and abusive speech on the site. In the UK, Peter Kyle, the secretary of state for science and technology, told parliament: “I expect that company to do better in protecting service users, particularly children.”
RTFA before replying
imo if anything the opposite causality is true: this DOJ was banking on a continuation of Biden in Kamala Harris, and because that is no longer forthcoming they’re now trying to get something out the door before the administrative changeover in the hopes it can stick. it almost certainly won’t, but most of Trump’s appointees are gigamad about “censorship” and they hate Google for “punishing conservative voices” or whatever so it’s hardly the most contrived hail mary if so
it is not okay to deadname people for any reason (as everyone under this post already has stated), and if you do this again on the instance you will be banned from Beehaw for at least a week.
Surely it can’t just be because a town name happens to contain “lsd” in the middle of it?
Facebook is a remarkably bad website so i think you’d be quite surprised at how stuck in the past they are over there
With no voices in support in the original post and currently the only two voices in support here being the mods themselves.
bluntly: this is not a democracy, we don’t pretend it is, and we’ve never run it that way so this is not a particularly relevant consideration for us. democracy at the scale of communities is an incredibly fraught issue that requires a lot of time and energy to administer we don’t have. in any case none of our referendums in the community (which we’ve done before) have been majority votes, they’ve solicited feedback that informs our judgement. our judgement here is this is a good idea regardless of how the community feels about it, and that even if we didn’t implement the moratorium we’d be cracking down on posts, handing out bans, and doing sweeping removals because we’ve been more permissive than our usual moderation on the subject and let behavior we’d normally step in on go.
in short: even if the moratorium were removed, that’d just mean heavier-handed enforcement from this point forward. if people really want no moratorium then they should be prepared to start catching 30-day bans (or permanent bans if they’re off instance) for any unkind behavior.
i love Faiz but it’s really as simple as “he cannot speak or animate a room to save his life and he’s clearly better working on infrastructure side of things than leading a political party”. there’s a reason he was Bernie’s senior advisor and not a public face of the campaign (and before that an aide to Nancy Pelosi).