it is pretty clear trump would pardon or vacate any fine against a right winger org.

The president does not yet have pardoning power over civil judgements. Maybe a constitutional amendment to do that is coming, but we haven't had a vote on it yet.

Some good has come from promoting more user speech online, but also a lot of bullying, harassment, echo chambers, doxxing, stochastic terrorism, and so on.

You make it sound as dangerous as a 1775 soap box that people like Sam Adams would stand upon and shout from, or a pamphlet-printing-press that someone like Thomas Paine might use, where in both cases the goal was often to rowse the rabble into protest and action.

But is the internet really that dangerous?

"The platforms" are, at best, a percent of the internet.

Sign up for a linode, put up any sort of website you can imagine on it, and explain why you would choose for the algorithms you write or install, to work the way that you fear.

It doesn't have to be as bad as you say, unless you want it. That's essential freedom.

This would result in suppression of anti Trump opinion

It will result in suppression of all anti- power/wealth opinion, i.e. all criticism of government or big-pocketed business.

This change is sponsored by litigious motherfuckers. Trump is only the instance-du-jour, a few percent of the overall threat, though very much a shining example of it.

With one important difference, this reminds me of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which established a national speed limit of 55 MPH. States had to either adopt a state speed limit of 55 MPH, or else lose out on funding, i.e. get punished.

Of course, that was a law enacted by Congress, not an Executive order. I guess, traditionally, they say that for first quarter millennium of America, Congress held the purse strings because some inky piece of paper said they were supposed to, as if Congress could ever handle that much responsibility! Can you imagine?! Anyway, we've decided Fuck That Tradition, let's try something new and put a thieving tool in charge of the purse.

NO! This is an outrage! [slams table]

Our religious war should be about reader's choice vs writer's choice!

Ok, but which of those things came with the new law? A lot of what you're describing (I suspect all of it) was already in place. What changed for non-banned users?

Oh, so they're doing it the same way I take "good" photographs: by taking a fuckton of mostly-shitty photographs and trawling through them for the rare few which actually look decent.

Vaporware. If this feature doesn't make it into the Open Source driver so that I can know where my computer is, then I'm not going to buy any Nvidia hardware!

If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant

It was good enough for us!

Forget the kids, they don't vote so they can be safely trod upon. Who cares what their experiences are.

But seriously, what about the not-kids? Australian adults, are you having to show your ID when you get a DHCP lease? Do a lot of websites who didn't have mandatory logins, now have 'em?

How does it work, and what has changed for you?

Europe is now eyeing similar bans, as well as proposals for a late-night "curfew", curbs on addictive features, and an EU-wide age verification app.

LATE-NIGHT CURFEW?!

If Europe isn't careful, they're going to teach a generation of kids that it's ok to do their FTPing during business hours.

Deadlines exist, and workplace accommodations exist. It's why the ADA and section 504 exist. And honestly, if a boss isn't able to support his employee on having the time to complete the work, that's the boss's fault for failing to be flexible and understanding how to help their employee succeed. Accommodations exist to help employees be the best they can be, and the disability world is honestly flush with neurodivergent people talking about how they had an asshole boss who never accommodated them, and they went through a living hell, then quitting and finding a job with a boss who actually worked with them, and they're a top performer. I've been through that process a number of times. The realities of the job are absolutely the realities of the job, but more often than not, the issues people with disabilities have in the workplace are the fault of shitty ablest managers who can't or won't think outside the box, not with the constraints of the work.

So this is all a bunch of moral panic, and ablest bs for a number of reasons. A: Extra time on tests really isn't the end of the world that people make it out to be. If someone needs a bit longer to do their work, what is the issue? The point of schooling is that people understand the subject matter, so if someone needs a bit more time to get it right, what's the issue? I'd rather my doctor take a day extra with my test results to really think about them than give me a knee jerk reaction. B: I see a lot of people here who are really, really ill informed on disability which isn't surprising given that it's Slashdot, but right now we're in a time where autism and ADHD diagnoses are skyrocketing due to increased diagnostic clarity. The number of severely high needs individuals has stayed relatively static, but we're getting a lot better at screening for ADHD (there's literally an app that has an 80% success rate that can be used as a preliminary screener by any school nurse) especially in underrepresented populations. And given that a lot of the stigma around neurodivergence is going down (although it's starting to rise again) people are getting more comfortable disclosing that they have a learning disability, even if they've been able to be successful academically. It's kind of like identifying that you have asthma and need an inhaler and some accommodations to participate in PE- you can still participate and likely pass, but you will need some extra accommodation. But at the end of the day, providing accommodations like extra time on tests and other relatively benign things isn't the end of the world. The point of schooling is to show subject matter expertise, and someone can still show that if they have an extra hour to finish the test. and C: ADHD absolutely does exist. My wife's working on her chem degree with ADHD, and it's brutal- she needs about three times as much time to study as her peers because her mind literally won't focus, and the only pill that actually does any good is damn near impossible to get. I get so tired of people who act as armchair psychologists because they read some article.

Do these people really think they're hiding Directive 4 from us?