Yes.
Hmm
Yes.
I use an ad blocker and it pretty much just blocks the entire logarithm
It definitely has that Front Page feel. I straight up just blocked .world after they took a pro Meta stand.
Right? It’s probably less about foreign enemies and more about hiding genocide.
It depends on the situation and the policing body.
It’s… glaringly depressing.
Water flowing underground
Yup. Can’t get a solid nights sleep since the last time I got covid months ago. I get this too. It’s awful.
I have lasting issues from a mild 2020 infection. My heart scares me the most these days.
Don’t you mean intriguing?
I think leaks should come with stiff penalty. Like the CTO goes to jail, pays each person involved for a lifetime worth of damage, and then has their head and arms locked in an old timey wooden head and hands stock lock at the center of town square where the public gets to throw rotten food at their face. No but seriously, they need to pay people affected a lot of money for potentially fucking their credit up because that’s where this kind of data goes.
“We promise to not let it fall into the wrong hands.” -The company that’s been massively hacked a few times
This was the nerdiest “Choose your adventure” rpg but it was a fun read.
Following this cause that was my question too
I’m a time where ios is beating Android’s ass. I guess 2023 is the year all the dumbest tech bros tell their competition to take over.
In America, software owns you
What a poorly written article…
Seems to be the current trend in social media this year…
The actual document pretty much says the federal decision on decency is established in the first amendment category as an already established precedent and whatever the inept republicans were trying wasn’t remotely good enough to challenge it.
“V. CONCLUSION At the core of Defendant’s argument is the suggestion that H.B. 1181 is constitutional if the Supreme Court changes its precedent on obscenity. Defendant may certainly attempt a challenge to Miller and Reno at the Supreme Court. But it cannot argue that it is likely to succeed on the merits as they currently stand based upon the mere possibility of a change in precedent. Nor can Defendant argue that the status quo is maintained at the district court level by disregarding Supreme Court precedent. The status quo has been—and still is today—that content filtering is a narrower alternative than age verification. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 667. The Court agrees that the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online. But that goal, however crucial, does not negate this Court’s burden to ensure that the laws passed in its pursuit comport with established First Amendment doctrine. There are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means. See ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d, 534 F.3d 181. (“I may not turn a blind eye to the law in order to attempt to satisfy my urge to protect this nation’s youth by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available[.]”). Because the Court finds that H.B. 1181 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. # 5), as to their First Amendment claims and GRANT the motion in part and DENY the motion in part as to their Section 230 claims. Defendant Angela Colmenero, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, is preliminarily ENJOINED from enforcing any provision of H.B. 1181.”
Same