To be fair, this is more than just the algorithm highlighting the huge news of the day... a bunch of search terms were returning no results, like they were intentionally filtered. There is some fuckery going on there, no doubt. And there seems to be a few whistleblowers coming forward from X alleging they were forced to skew things to help Trump. Who knows.. I don't do facebook or instagram (except to follow my dog at daycare) or X, so don't have firsthand knowledge.
On the one hand, Zuckerberg is suck a pathetic dick-suck that I can see him intentionally inflating Trump's follower numbers in order to kiss his ass. On the other hand, Facebook has such an incredibly shit engineering culture I can see them creating a platform-wide bug that they don't know how to fix.
Being friends with Trump allows them to kill fact checking and a bunch of other shit Dems forced them to do, at huge expense.
In this instance, the “forced to follow trump/vance” is the fact that the “potus” and “vp” Instagram accounts automatically switch with each administration. Now, there is a debate on whether it should be announced, and maybe Biden did ok the way out, I don’t know. I don’t follow the accounts. But also, the algorithm sucks so bad you don’t see most of what you follow.
This is exactly the explanation that sprang to mind for me. I also saw posts about Biden being left off searches for US presidents. I did a google search, and lo and behold, there was Biden. I’m also finding the Constitution on numerous government websites, so that issue appears overblown as well. Just a reminder to fact check everything.
Well, that one is true, on whitehouse.gov I would think there would be aspects of the site that were kept separate from the current administration’s updates, but it looks like they wiped everything clean without thinking about the PR consequences. In another life, I am in PR, I am preventing fires before there’s smoke, and I am fucking rich.
Sure it’s a bad look, and stupid, but the government isn’t wholesale purging the constitution from public records. At least not yet. To change gears a bit, because I was furious about it-Regarding the executive order pertaining to birthright citizenship, I suggest everyone actually read the executive order. All of the headlines say it ends birthright citizenship, when that is not at all what it says. It’s actually pretty narrow in scope. I’m not sure I disagree with it now that I’ve read it. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with anything that orange moron does, but here we are. Judge issues on the facts.
Some of it, like overlooking that the old site hosted a copy of the constitution, is PR. But stuff like not building a Spanish version of the site, or taking down the reproductive health website (which was on a separate domain) were deliberate choices.
No shit. Give me a big salary and I'll make sure your company never has to apologize for wearing KKK costumes... https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/po-cruises-kkk-fancy-dress-b2684051.html
I mean, that's exactly what it says. Birthright citizenship is the right to citizenship based on being born in the US, which the order attempts to revoke by adding non-constitutional conditions on it. It was just smacked down by a Reagan-appointed judge who called it the most clearly unconstitutional action he's ever seen on the bench.
I’m not a judge or constitutional scholar, so I’m not saying I’m right about its constitutionality, but you are incorrect. It doesn’t “end” birthright citizenship. It says that if a mother who is here temporarily, and/or illegally, gives birth, and the father also is not a legal citizen, then the child is not. We can of course argue about whether we agree with it or not. For example, if a mother is here on vacation, or for business, gives birth here, is that child a citizen? I mean, why should it be? That’s clearly not what the 14th amendment intended. Take it a step further- if a mother is here in a work visa or student visa, and gives birth, and the father isn’t a citizen, why would that child then be a citizen? Why should they be? So then we arrive at the current point- if a mother is here illegally, and the father isn’t a citizen, why should that child be a citizen? I suspect it will all boil down to how “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is interpreted.
You're arguing against birthright citizenship here. Birthright citizenship is the simple rule that if you're born in American soil, you're one of us. You can disagree with it as policy, and support a constitutional amendment to overturn it, but the President 100% lacks the authority to do that unilaterally. It's not really ambiguous, legally speaking. Subject to the jurisdiction means that the United States can enforce its laws on you. This means everyone on sovereign US territory, with the exception of diplomats who have diplomatic immunity. In the past there were some complexities around Indians whose tribes were quasi-separate nations with whom the US had treaties (not that we held to them well). That was addressed in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act.
The issue I have with the headlines is that they imply that the EO unilaterally does away with birthright citizenship, when it only eliminates it in certain narrow circumstances. However, I acknowledge that you are correct in what you’ve posted above, and I recognize that a constitutional amendment is needed. My opinion is that people born here under certain circumstances should not in fact be citizens, the 14th amendment is poorly worded, and that should be rectified. Looks like I’m sort of disagreeing with His Trumpiness after all. Thanks, that was close.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. Birthright citizenship has a meaning. If you were born here, you're a citizen, regardless of your parents' citizenship. That's what it is. The EO does unilaterally do away with birthright citizenship. Under the EO, one of your parents has to be a citizen or permanent resident. It is no longer, "you are a citizen if you are born here," but instead, "you are a citizen if your parent is a permanent resident of the US." Regardless of your stance on the 14th amendment, I just think it's so utterly fucking stupid that we're at a point where the president is signing executive orders are are so bluntly, laughably, utterly unconstitutional - that would be obviously unconstitutional to a third grader. This isn't a nuanced take on things. This is just pretending we can rewrite the constitution through executive order. It's like he's sticking his fingers in his ears and going "NA-NA-NA-NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
So what's the point of all these EOs? Even if DJT is too stupid (likely) to know that, are there really no one around him that says "Sir, these are just going to be kicked back by the courts" More "chess, not checkers" of then blaming the courts and "that's why we need to get rid of the courts! They won't allow me to move this country in the correct direction!" And then MAGA idiots stop gargling his balls long enough to say "Damn straight! Let's get rid of the courts!"?
Ahhh. Shit. never thought of that. I figured it would be “President of the US”, not their name. Doh. Makes sense.
A lot of it is distraction. Gets him headlines and “ratings”. A lot of it throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. A lot of it is throwing red meat to the base. I bet part of it is to help generate more grievance to give him shit to complain about when it fails. This is the exact same shit he did last time. The country is just too stupid to remember.
Well. Some of the EOs are not unconstitutional. And sometimes the EOs need to get specifically challenged and picked apart by the courts with more nuance. But overall I think it accomplishes two things - one is that it panders to their base, which is a common theme in the Trump administration. Say you're going to do a bunch of stuff that you have no power to actually do (and mostly no interest in doing anyway), but it's what the base wants and signing an EO that you can't enforce is the easiest pandering bullshit you can do - it requires no effort, and lets him claim they tried. Two is basically what you said; the far right absolutely loves to demand illegal or unconstitutional things and then shake their fists when it gets denied and point at it as evidence why the systems can't be trusted. It fits into the gameplan - you don't need to build anything, you just need to tear at stuff long enough that it breaks and then claim you're the only one who can fix it. Everything is DEI or the deep state or whatever, so just give us all the power and everything will be fine.