you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -17 points 9 months ago (22 children)

What difference does that make?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    You're right, there's no harm to complying in advance. Let's do it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 9 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    complying in advance is incredibly dangerous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-obey-in-advance/

    bottom line: compliance to fascism before it's forced you to comply is how fascism goes from visible in the public sphere to all consuming slaughter machine. the best way to resist fascism is early and often. make them work for it. especially when the current iteration is fundamentally composed of lazy losers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Its irrational radicals like you who are undermining the resistance effort

    Just pick up a severe eating disorder, donate all your money to the heritage foundation, and play a round of Russian roulette every night. Spin that cylinder! For the resistance!

    Fucking insane children trying yo undermine real, serious adult resistance. I swear if the fascists win it will be all your fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    took me longer than i would have liked to realize you were joking 😂

    we live in a nightmare…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    This is not even remotely the same thing. This article is talking about doing something that you are asked to do by fascists or anticipate being illegal. The situation we're discussing is literally already signed law and it's simply a matter of (a very specific) time before it's mandated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    i wanted to take some time to review and reflect, and i cannot bring myself to the same conclusion. as you said, the mandate does not exist yet. plus, this fascist regime has invented new ways of losing in the courts because they simply don't have total control yet. bluesky has the resources to fight for their users right in court. by choosing not to wait for a court order or even put up a minimal legal resistance, they complied in advance. to me, their decision to remove these posts or ban these accounts reflects not a requirement to comply, but instead company values. they thought it would be easier and cheaper to roll over. i think this is ultimately the underlying flaw of for-profit media companies so i'm not surprised, and the conclusion i reach is that with a for profit media company, i am the product. as the product, i can refuse to have my attention sold to the highest bidder as an "impression." if i don't like fascism, i don't use bluesky. so i don't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    the mandate does not exist yet

    It does.

    bluesky has the resources to fight for their users right in court.

    They don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    then why restore the posts and accounts? why did you say the mandate would exist soon instead of already? and yes. the absolutely have the money to hire a lawyer and put forward the legal deposits to challenge this in court. any company with more than 50 employees not approaching bankruptcy filings does

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    why did you say the mandate would exist soon instead of already?

    You're mixing up various timelines. There is the date it was signed into law, and the date it was enforced, and these are both in the past. BSky enacted this between the 2.

    the absolutely have the money to hire a lawyer and put forward the legal deposits to challenge this in court.

    It would be a waste of money. There's no way a scrappy startup wins a lawsuit of that scale against a state government or especially even an international one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    That delicious leather-rubber-mud taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I'm gonna state a new law, it needs you to rip one of your nails off and send it for age verification so you better start ripping it off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    it's the law brochacho you better start complying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments