That’s a good question. But keep in mind that they’re are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.
Imagine having that much of an issue with barely offensive words that their kids will never read because most don’t use the school library anyway.
And imagine letting your kids come home and access whatever media they want including actual pornography on the internet. Most of these parents have zero clue how to block internet sites on their home computers and laptops let alone the phones that their kids all have.
But of course, that’s another problem some parents are asking the government to solve by forcing porn sites to require visitors to affirmatively identify themselves and their age. Of course, that only applies to the major porn sites that play by the arbitrary rules anyway. All so stupid.
Good teacher. Authors choose their words intentionally. I’m guessing “fudging”, “friggen”, and “ducking” (thanks iPhone) are not great replacements for the subject matter.
As long as they’re peaceful, then pretty much, yes. A state university where the land is publicly owned (government “owned” property), it sounds like they were exercising their rights to assemble, speak, and petition the government…
Yep. 2 very simple rules for dealing with guns
I’m still convinced that he’s actively and intentionally trying to destroy Twitter.
Well, let’s talk about when Twitter was founded…
He’s one of those CEOs that teams have two meetings for: one where the CEO joins and they only say things the CEO wants to hear, and a second to actually discuss the relevant issues.
He did… But he does not have the authority.
Elected politician behaving like an out of control teenager is not relevant. Got it.
Person making poor life decisions is entrusted to make potentially life altering decisions on behalf of thousands of other people. And that’s not relevant?
What makes you think her constituents won’t just eat this shit up? They already voted for her once, her skills, knowledge, education and qualifications were never the qualities that got her elected in the first place. She’s one of those “she says what I’m thinking!” representatives
Ehhh… They might be okay to live in, but they are rarely a good financial decision overall unless you happen to own the land they’re constructed on.
Try finding a dumb tv for sale of relevant size and quality. I know you don’t have to connect it to wifi… Usually. But I just want a TV that doesn’t have all this shit in it to begin with.
They have become the evil they were once apart from.
In a streaming landscape dominated by ad companies like Google and Amazon, Roku was once the viable alternative. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, enshitification comes for us all eventually.
Give me freedom from advertising or give me death.
It’s not as easy as moderating individual posts. Remember, Lemmy is decentralized. If you start your own Lemmy server and I federated with it, I’ll get all the stuff you post on my instance too (intentionally oversimplified).
Its up to you to moderate communities on your instance the way you see fit, and up to me to moderate mine. Even though our instances are federated, I can’t moderate on your behalf. It just isn’t feasible both in terms of the technology and in terms of the sheer volume of content you would have to try to moderate.
If you have a community that posts a mix of things I agree with and things I don’t, I really only have a couple options on my end. Basically I can block that community on my instance or block your instance altogether.
The reason why someone might block a community may be more about the legal risk than any moral justification. Depending on where you are, it might be illegal to even host that information. And since Lemmy instances cache posts from other instances, it could be argued that because that community is federated with your instance, you’re responsible for the content posted there.
Just as venture capitalism demands.
In terms of a bill making it through congress, Biden has zero say in the matter until it reaches his desk.
I love how the conversation is always “ban tiktok” and not “ban the specific practices that make TikTok problematic”.
Don’t want to upset the massive corporate overlords that run the US social media companies doing the exact same things.
There’s a reason scam artists target the elderly. If a box on the computer screen says “put payment info here” then who are they to argue with the box?