• 1 Post
  • 171 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Thats very dismissive of you and does not fit this community well imo.

    That’s not your place to decide.

    pushing your assumptions on others is a dick move.

    Don’t really know what assumptions I pushed here.

    Telling people you feel your existence is denied because someone says “autistic people don’t have powers” is just not a good look. Calling names and picking fights with people who don’t agree with you isn’t either.

    Unfortunately for you, I’m not leaving this community just because you want me to. I will be blocking you because I didn’t come here to be called a dismissive dick. I suggest you do the same.

    Have a nice day.















  • During the evidentiary hearing, the Court asked the State’s expert, Mr. Allen, whether he believed Snapchat met Act 689’s definition of a regulated “social media company.” He responded in the affirmative, explaining that Snapchat’s “primary purpose” matched Act 689’s definition of a “social media company” (provided it was true that Snapchat also met the Act’s profitability requirements). When the Court asked the same question to the State’s attorney later on in the hearing, he gave a contrary answer—which illustrates the ambiguous nature of key terms in Act 689. The State’s attorney disagreed with Mr. Allen—his own witness—and said the State’s official position was that Snapchat was not subject to regulation because of its “primary purpose.”

    Something has got to be done about this recent flood of vaguely worded (selectively enforced) bills.