Its like the Epic Games Store supporting Linux, or [any website] supporting dark mode. You'd think its an easy to implement bare minimum that everyone asks for, but its like pulling teeth to actually get it done.
> ..or [any website] supporting dark mode. You'd think its an easy to implement bare minimum that everyone asks for, but its like pulling teeth to actually get it done.
At least with dark mode, you can ignore most web developers and get a browser extension to make everything dark, then only webmasters who don't follow standards gets it wrong.
<Platform> is basically impossible to support. <Company> pulled it off by shipping a complete copy of the Chromium browser with <Product> and turning it into a web application.
In any case I don't see how this is materially different from Windows where it's the norm for every game to ship its own libraries and install various redistributables to function.
On Windows those libraries are part of the application package. On Linux they're supposedly part of the OS, they're designed to be part of the OS and the loader is trying to get them from the OS, but is redirected to get them from the wrapper layer provided by the store (neither the application nor the OS!) instead.
Anybody crossing the border. The justification is that the government's constitutional right to control imports overrides the 4th amendment right to privacy.
>“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.
> Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
> Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
Even worse: The Trump administration claimed international airports as part of the border. (I saw that once, months ago. I do not know what the legal state of that claim is, or even whether it is currently part of their theory of what they are allowed to do.)
The problem is the 100 mile rule, which effectively puts most of the population under the purview of border control measures.
Apart from that, an airport is a comparatively small area of land that is magnitudes easier to monitor than a border that only exists as a thousands of miles long line on the map, therefore the 100 miles rule should not be applied. And everyone getting off an international flight in the USA has already been searched multiple times.
I can't supply you a reference. It was... maybe 4 to 6 months ago? Border Patrol was doing something more than 100 miles from the border, and a reporter asked them what their justification was for being active that far inland, and the Border Patrol spokesperson said "international airport".
I mean, that could have been just one person's attempt to justify them operating outside their legal authority. Or it could have been what they were told to say, meaning it was somewhat more official policy (or at least official smokescreen du jour). At any rate, it has been claimed, at least once, not in court but to the press.
If so this was an individual claim, it’s not known to be official policy, the law doesn’t support it, and it hasn’t been used as a successful argument in court. This claim comes up regularly but it’s a misinterpretation/rumor. People should stop repeating it or it will become one of those “folk truths” that eventually becomes accepted and real.
It's not a folk truth that I saw it, in a mainstream news report, said by a Border Patrol employee to justify their actions more than 100 miles from the border. That's not a misinterpretation; that really happened. At least once.
I would be delighted for it to not have been an actual administration claim, ever.
Fair, I have no doubt that someone has falsely claimed it in order to do an illegal search, but it still is a false claim and (based on current understanding of the law) would not hold up in court.
As it is the 100 mile zone sweeps in most of the population.
So the argument is basically that Americans already consent to allowing customs to search anything and everything that they are physically bringing across the border, whether a US citizen or not, and now that is also affirmed to include the digital contents of electronic devices.
American diesel emission standards are famously more strict than Germany's. That's the whole reason why diesel cars aren't as common in the USA, and why Volkswagen had to cheat to pass emissions tests.
Railways have emissions standards different from road vehicles. And VW cheated because they couldn't pass European regulations, the thing is that the big lawsuit took place in the US because US courts allow far bigger monetary amounts.
Probably because living in PNG sucks and they would rather risk their lives at a chance of improving their condition. Same reason immigrants came from Germany to the US to live in mud dugout houses in the plains. Or immigrants go anywhere really.
The accusation was that Twitter was working with the US government to censor speech on the government's behalf. Which would be a first amendment violation. The FBI's defense is that they technically never ordered Twitter to take down anything, but merely "flagged" posts and sent those flags to Twitter execs.
This type of loophole was (likely) closed after the ruling of Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" executive order.
Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied?
It’s a private company. Free speech doesn’t mean I’m entitled to use your property to post and amplify my speech.
I also find the context of the whole thing suspect since Trump in his second administration has openly used the FCC and other federal pressures to attack speech he doesn’t like and Musk’s X has not been “free speech absolutist.”
I always thought it was just the far right being mad their side wasn’t in charge, and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated.
>Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied?
The entire point of the case was to determine exactly that. Read the judgement. If it were an open and shut case, it never would have made it to the supreme court.
>and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated
How in the world did you get to that conclusion from Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" order?
From the open use of the FCC to threaten television networks for saying things the president doesn't like? Among many other examples? That's just a particularly overt one.
I'm just saying overall behavior -- outside this specific case -- is not consistent with a regime (or a larger political movement) that believes in free speech. It's consistent with "we want to be the ones in charge determining speech," with opposition to Twitter's previous moderation being motivated by that rather than principled belief in free speech.
The net effect of the Twitter takeover was not to make it a free speech absolutist platform but to shift the pattern of selective boosting and selective de-boosting and moderation to one that favors the far right's message.
"Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it.
It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost". Twitter is a paid service. To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads.
Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government.
> "Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it.
This is one way to define it, yes, but Musk is a self-described “free speech absolutist” which I would argue means that he feels speech should be maximally free.
> It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost".
I have never meant it in that way, and I’m not sure why you thought I did.
> To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads.
This is possibly pedantic but this statement as written is false. I can view single tweets just fine, and I don’t see ads.
> Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government.
That analogy doesn’t really work here, IMO. My only point is that it’s objectively true that speech behind a login wall is less free (as in freedom) than speech not behind a login wall, and so a (non-hypocritical) “free speech absolutist” should always prefer the latter.
He is a hypocrite, so he defines it however is convenient at the time. But I think my interpretation is a reasonable one for someone calling themselves a free speech absolutist.
Then they should be glad Nitter instances are offloading some of their traffic, right? Some requests are cache hits, so I handled that whole request myself and spared an Elon server from handling it.
I mean, you could easily construct a mirror image of both of those, and I would say that that's closer to the reality of what the content available to downrank is actually like. I don't think questions like yours are engaging honestly or in good faith.
The person you’re replying to isn’t going to substantively respond, because fragile snowflakes typically won’t engage when they recognize that answering a simple question exposes their hypocrisy.
reply