BaldManGoomba

Because they have always been win. Evil never sleeps and it will always exist. Good people have to fight every day to make progress. Perfect example is Bernie sanders and democrats. Bernie has been fighting since the 70s. Democrats have been it is good enough things are fine just defend the status quo. Meanwhile people are working everyday to setup bad things with currently things reaching back as far as Clinton and people can argue Reagan.

Evil never sleeps and is constantly working to undermine peace. Lots of people are honestly mediocre or middle of the road once things are good enough they stop fighting. There has only ever been a few good people fighting. People deep in community actively doing good things.

So if we had a truly progressive party in power conservatives job would be saying can we afford this, what would the impacts be, why do we need to do this thing, why is the status quo not good etc etc. Then they are suppose to listen to reason, trial out big changes, adapt, and let the future go forward making sure the small man and traditionalists aren't left behind.

Instead conservatives are about changing the climate, culture, and environment to hurt others or hold back common sense things that make people equal.

If you get paid more you can parrot the talking point that you are more valuable and work harder that is why you are compensated more. Or point out you have more leverage at your job because it is more valuable that is why you get more days off.

I dont know if this is true but the rumor is the data resembles vote switch that putin does with machines

https://youtu.be/QDWwLDejg8Y?si=y_ckplWhEzun8nvq

Top part opinion the rest is the wording of the law you quoted. Want to point out if it has fangs or any actual good legislation or just say they did a thing?

Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.

Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016 DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).

The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user's request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

DIVISION I--PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual's data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

Not laws in the USA. Only some states...maybe if you arent salary

Why not both? People are motivated or get things in different ways sometimes I just need the command other times I need to understand why. As for titles of sections the funny or longer chapter lines I might remember better than the simple one.

Personally I think it does as the institutional and mainstream answer is completely unacceptable. To have so many waver or not want to answer is pretty telling/meaningful. IMO

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bLmjKzZ43eLIxZb1Bt9iNAo8ZAZ01Huy/htmlview

The actual Emerson college survey has it at 58.7% of the people find the shooters actions as completely unacceptable. True 16.5% find it completely or somewhat acceptable. Lots of neutral and unsure at 15.9% and somewhat unacceptable at 9%.

BTW this poll isn't perfectly accurate in who they sampled as 37% south,17.7% northeast , 52% women, 18% post doc, 24% college grad,also so many old people versus young. The demographics aren't properly proportional.

That being said best insights we have polling though may be a way of the past

In states that didn't matter. In every swing state but Pennsylvania they had record turnouts. She even beat some of bidens support in those states and still lost. 7 million isn't the story it is she didn't really gain 250k votes in 4 key states and lost.

It is more like 250k in 4 states that flipped.