Hey OP, are you covered by the GDPR or CCPA?
If so perhaps you could ask for a copy of your data that lemmy world has on your former accounts, and report to the regulator if they ignore your request. Not sure if federation helps or hurts - like could you say that lemmy world must have something of your data since other federated servers still have a copy of your content?
Would be nice if there was a way to use the GDPR here to bring some addtional accountability to the lemmy world admins.
Would love to hear more about the ansible way.
Perhaps you could assert a copyright claim to the extent that you own your own modified version of the text of the rules - at least the sockpuppet would have to change the wording.
Also, specific to the role of Speaker, he’s disqualified due to having been indicted of felonies with a term of more than two years.
or prison for the chump you suckered into cheap labour.
I'm not seeing the 'or' bit. The article says the driver was already sentenced to nine years back in 2019. So it might be prison and deportation.
It also says he was a new permanent resident when the crime was committed. I'm surprised how they can so easily deport someone who has PR.
allow this situation to happen and all its gonna be is a civil fine for you
Alas, this is the real problem. And this case/hearing isn't going to affect the precedent on that, it will only affect the precedent for the future chumps.
Reddit's approach to replacement mod appointments has further damaged community trust in Reddit
Interesting that an article owned by the holding company of reddit (Arstechnica and reddit are both owned by Conde Nast) would be so critical of reddit.
The one thing I never understood is why did the Oliver subs go back to normal instead of sticking with Oliver. Finally, interest was lost in the Oliver jokes and traffic was going down. So it would have been the perfect time to enforce Oliver and cut into the ads traffic that way. News articles at the time didn't show any indication that this was another moved forced by reddit admins so why did the mods seemingly cave in without cause?
If you check out the modlog, https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/modlog you can see that @Shortcake last did some moderation activity six days ago, deleting and blocking stuff from federated user imona at kbin.melroy.org
I think the admins like @ernest wouldn't do anything at this point, since the mod reappeared somewhat recently to reclaim the mantle. Instead, we need to figure out how to reach out to Shortcake and figure out how to get moderation more active here again.
Hopefully they just haven’t thought about that yet
I'm actually happy to give a vote of confidence in @Shortcake who did a great job moderating this magazine in the beginning.
If that individual would just return to checking this magazine more frequently, I'm happy to leave things as-is.
But if that's not possible, hopefully Shortcake will appoint someone as a third mod soon so this magazine can get cleaned up. (Speak of - any volunteers?)
Actually, @Shortcake got back to me two days ago and took care of the spam - or so we thought. I'm sending another message now since we're getting more spam.
I'm wondering if an email was sent out as part of the updates that @ernest and @admin are doing to kbin, which might have grabbed the mods attention here. The lack of email notifications makes it hard to keep up, I'm thinking.
The new article links to an academic article which describes the full legal theory, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095
The short version, from the news article, is this:
The academic article goes on in some detail hypothesizing why this might have been the case. Basically at the time it was written, every former President had been some other kind of Officer first, and even today Drumpf is the sole exception, so the omission of the P and VP might have been a sort of compromise to make it easier to get that amendment passed.
The academic article does a good job of proposing that it's not a simple oversight - remember that a former US President had joined the Confederacy at that time, so this sort of thing was exactly at the top of their minds.
As much as I would personally disagree with this, I have to admit that the legal arguments made seem very sound to my layman's understanding of things. Really unfortunate, though I do see a silver lining here - most other challenges have dealt with how hard it is to define an insurrection and if Drumpf really participated or not. At least the judge here did indeed agree with the fact that Drumpf was part of an insurrection.
Perhaps States can pass laws that, in addition to requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to be eligible to stand in that State, also require that candidates a) never took part in an insurrection or b) apologized for it. As Drumpf would never apologize, he'd thus not be eligible to stand.