HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » octoberlib » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Current location: Charlotte, NC
Member since: Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:15 AM
Number of posts: 12,798

Journal Archives

Jack Dorsey of Twitter is testifying before the Commerce Committee on 230


He's tweeting his opening statement:


§230 gave internet services two important tools. The first provides immunity from liability for user’s content. The second provides “Good Samaritan” protections for content moderation and removal, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it’s done “in good faith.”

That concept of “good faith” is what’s being challenged by many of you today. Some of you don’t trust we’re acting in good faith. That’s the problem I want to focus on solving. How do services like Twitter earn your trust? How do we ensure more choice in the market if we don’t?

There are three solutions we’d like to propose to address the concerns raised, all focused on services that decide to moderate or remove content. They could be expansions to §230, new legislative frameworks, or a commitment to industry wide self-regulation best practices.

The first is requiring a service’s moderation process to be published. How are cases reported and reviewed? How are decisions made? What tools are used to enforce? Publishing answers to questions like these will make our process more robust and accountable to the people we serve.

The second is requiring a straightforward process to appeal decisions made by humans or algorithms. This ensures people can let us know when we don't get it right, so that we can fix any mistakes and make our processes better in the future.

And finally, much of the content people see today is determined by algorithms, with very little visibility into how they choose what they show. We took a first step in making this more transparent by building a button to turn off our home timeline algorithms. It’s a good start.

We’re inspired by the market approach suggested by Dr. Stephen Wolfram before this committee in June 2019. Enabling people to choose algorithms created by third parties to rank and filter their content is an incredibly energizing idea that’s in reach. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/06/testif

Requiring 1) moderation process and practices to be published, 2) a straightforward process to appeal decisions, and 3) best efforts around algorithmic choice, are suggestions to address the concerns we all have going forward. And they’re all achievable in short order.

It’s critical as we consider these solutions, we optimize for new startups and independent developers. Doing so ensures a level playing field that increases the probability of competing ideas to help solve problems. We mustn’t entrench the largest companies any further.

This is a personal preference but I'm not a fan of the beard. Or David Letterman's , for that matter.

If you like podcasts, this is a good one: Battleground w/ David Plouffe and Steve Schmidt

Guests are James Carville and Stuart Stevens.

This week on Battleground, David and Steve are joined by former Republican strategist and media wizard Stuart Stevens and the Ragin’ Cajun himself, James Carville. They take a bird's-eye view of the election which includes but is not limited to: trying to fix the Democrats' attitude problem, evaluating Trump’s electorate woes, and sussing out Southern senate races. Finally, what do you get when two Democrats and two ex-Republicans try to figure out the future of the Republican Party? Listen to find out!


The size of the Supreme Court has been legally changed 7 times


It underwent five full legal implementations:

1789-1807: six seats
1807-1837: seven seats
1837-1866: ten seats
1866-1867: nine seats
1867-1869: eight seats
1869-present: nine seats

And twice, legislation changed its size but was never implemented for various reasons, notably the Judiciary Act of 1801 (or Midnight Judges Act), which would have reduced its size to five upon the next vacancy but was repealed by the Judiciary Act of 1802.

Another attempt that was never (fully) implemented was the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, which would have provided the next three justices not be replaced when they retire; however, only two seats were eliminated before the Circuit Judges Act altered the size to nine seats.

But why all the fluctuation?

Well, the way our judiciary system is set up is having three levels of federal courts.

At the district level, the lowest, there are 673 federal judges.

They're overseen by 179 appeals judges (circuit courts).

At the top: 9 SCOTUS justices.

Over time, the expansion of the United States in both land and population required a greater workload, which meant more district judges, more appeals judges, etc.

For example, the Seventh Circuit was added in 1807, along with a SCOTUS justice to match in labor.

That's how we eventually got to nine justices, to correspond with nine circuit courts. There's a lot of political maneuvering between parties here, tho, which is why we went from 7 to 10 to 9 to 8 to 9.

(Are you getting the feeling the court has always been political? Correct.)

It's also fair to note that the practice of SCOTUS justices "riding circuit", as in literally taking a tour of courts in their corresponding region, fell out of practice with time.

What didn't change is that we STILL altered the federal judiciary LONG after 1869. Like recently.

For example, in 1978, Congress authorized 117 additional district judges and 35 circuit court judges (the appeals judges) to be appointed by the President.

In 1984, there were 24 additional circuit court judges authorized.

Fast-forward to Obama's presidency, when despite Democrats winning two presidential elections in a row, McConnell and GOP Senators blocked over 100 judicial nominations by Obama.

There was "no will of the people" nonsense. He just blocked them. Didn't even consider them.

There are 870 federal judgeships that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, authorized under Article III fo the Constitution.

Through this egregious process, Trump and McConnell have slammed through 220 confirmations at those three levels. In 4 years.

For comparison, Obama put through 329 over EIGHT years through a good faith process.

For those doing the math, Trump has confirmed about 25% more federal judges annually. That's a lot. And it was done so through an intentional rigging of the process at stunning speed.

Holy Jesus H. Christ on an amicus brief -Charlie Pierce On Kavanaugh's new brief on voting rights


Holy shit—Brett Kavanaugh just endorsed Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore, which was too extreme for Kennedy or O'Connor.

This is a red alert. I can't believe he put it in a footnote. This is terrifying. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7276432/10-26-20-DNC-v-Wisconsin-SCOTUS-Order.pdf

Replying to
The headline news here is that, by a 5–3 vote, SCOTUS made it harder for Wisconsin residents to cast a ballot and make sure it's counted.

But arguably the bigger news is that Brett Kavanaugh endorsed a theory so radical that the court refused to adopt it in Bush v. Gore. My God.

This is VERY BAD NEWS for voting rights. Appallingly bad. Brett Kavanaugh used a footnote to throw his support behind an extreme theory that would severely limit state courts' ability to protect voting rights. It's the revenge of Bush. v. Gore. Actually, it's much worse.

How radical is Kavanaugh's theory? John Roberts felt compelled to reject it in a separate opinion, correctly noting that federal courts should keep their noses out of a state court's interpretation of its own state's election laws.

Roberts is now the moderate on voting rights.

Gorsuch also endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. And Kavanaugh joined his opinion. Both want to prevent governors, state courts, and state agencies from expanding voting rights—and have federal courts decide what how the legislature *really* wanted elections to be run.

We should be extremely worried that Kavanaugh would use this Trumpian rhetoric to describe counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. 18 states and DC count these ballots. Does Kavanaugh think that creates "chaos and suspicions of impropriety"?

Check out this tweet from Christopher Hale who's running for the House(TN)



Great campaign slogan! Oh my god.

One of the most evocative political photographs taken a week before election 1960


The photo is jarring.

An angry Lyndon Johnson, on the steps about to board an airplane, is pointing his finger and angrily shouting. Presidential candidate John Kennedy is a step or two above him, a serious look on his face, and reaching down to Johnson in an effort to cool him down.

American historian Michael Beschloss, who specializes in the U.S. presidency, tweeted that photo on Sunday. He called the photo “one of the most evocative photographs ever made of American political history.” And it was taken this week in 1960, and right here in River City, right here in Amarillo by Globe-News photographer Richard Pipes. Today, it’s archived in the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Just as Kennedy was about to speak on the makeshift platform to a crowd about to hang on his every word, an aircraft taxied not far away. It then revved its engines. That annoyed the crowd, which was waiting for the plane or jet — it’s not clear what it was — to take off so they could hear Kennedy. But the aircraft never moved. Its engines just roared and roared.

. It was political dirty tricks. The photo showed Johnson wanted to fight somebody. He was embarrassed by Amarillo in his home state. He likely filed that one away.


There's an I Will Vote concert tomorrow night



Chip in any amount to attend our "I Will Vote" concert in support of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Democrats across the country. Hosted by George Lopez and Ana Navarro, the concert will feature performances by:

A$AP Ferg, Sara Bareilles, Aloe Blacc, Black Eyed Peas & Jennifer Hudson, Jon Bon Jovi, Cher, Ciara, Darren Criss, Andra Day, Jermaine Dupri, NE-YO, Johnta Austin & Friends, Foo Fighters, Macy Gray, John Legend, Dave Matthews, P!nk, Ben Platt, and more.

And special guests Joe Biden & Jill Biden, Kamala Harris & Doug Emhoff, La La Anthony, Jaime Camil, Margaret Cho, Whoopi Goldberg, Dave Grohl, Armie Hammer, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Helen Mirren, Maren Morris, Billy Porter, Amy Schumer, will.i.am, Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, Tan France, Antoni Porowski & Jonathan Van Ness, and more.

You can catch it exclusively on Sunday, October 25th at 8:00 p.m. ET.


This seems to be the media's take on Trump last night.


This reporter is rightfully getting slammed in the comments. Trump may have been a little less shouty but he sure as hell wasn’t more disciplined.

This is why I think if a smart, competent authoritarian is ever elected, we are sooo fucking screwed.

One of Trump's guests is expected to be Tony Bubolinski


I hate this fucking asshole.


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 Next »