ChunkMcHorkle

When you have a president that interferes with the DoJ, it looks exactly like what Trump is doing right now.

An independent DoJ is the sole reason why his first term was not full of retaliatory prosecutions. But he learned what he needed to do to rig it, and then did so. And now we have what we have. Is that really what you want out of the US going forward?

I do NOT want a DoJ that a president interferes with, period. If it’s only “justice” for some, it’s NOT justice.

deleted by creator

Holy shit. That’s some arrogance right there, thinking no one would ever know or find out. Grand juries are secret, but they’re not THAT secret.

they think everything is more openly corrupt than it is yet.

You nailed it.

That whole “a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich” was when you could pull your jurors out of a citizen pool that didn’t walk in already believing you were lying through your fucking teeth.

But then they pulled the mask off, and let us all see how they are using the courts for vindictive prosecution and political harassment.

Looks like the ham sammich days are ending, lol.

They would have to get rid of juries altogether.

Given that our current legal system was created as a direct reaction to star chambers and baked into the constitution, they have an uphill climb, at the least.

You’ll never guess what Bill Gates’ daughter has been up to . . .

More information

Apologies for not replying to you directly – I meant to, lol. But thank you.

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted; this is far from being a fringe idea. Rather, it is well established and being studied. (Look at the About pages for an idea of who is behind research such as this.) To extrapolate that it is being done for political gain is no far leap, lol.

Roblox is a known nexus for this kind of activity (pick one, lol) and why wouldn’t it be? It’s one of the places where all the children are there and unsupervised.

Your points are well taken, but usually when responding to a lawsuit – especially a big dollar suit against a deep-pocketed corporation with an army of attorneys – the defending legal team will pile on every exonerating thing it can possibly think of, and continue to do so throughout the proceedings, because every single one is not just a chance to win but a chance to argue on appeal if they lose.

So they will throw in whatever they can think of, because something somewhere might stick, and meanwhile everything they tack on is something else the plaintiffs have to address in their own filings, adding to the plaintiff’s upfront cost of bringing the suit.

isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant?

It’s everything – or it used to be, before the current administration (US) decided to turn two and a half centuries of law into Calvinball.

I’m still pissed off about that. The guy’s wife fucking died and they pulled that shit.

But this was not in court: Disney was trying to force the surviving husband into arbitration and simply withdrew the objection to trial after it got a lot of bad publicity, so it was never heard in front of a judge. Disney never actually said it did not have absolute right to arbitration, it just withdrew the objection, meaning that they could do it again at any time.

I’m no expert, but my Business Law professors were absolutely adamant about the fact that a minor can never execute a legal agreement and there are no exceptions.

No, you’re absolutely right. There are no exceptions. In the US there are roughly six elements necessary for a contract to be legally binding, and this one is the issue of “legal capacity”: does the party entering into the contract have the capacity to understand and be bound to such an agreement? For minors, the broad answer in law is always no. They can get emancipated (a judge rules you an adult for legal purposes), they can have a parent or legal guardian act in their behalf, they can postpone until they are of age, etc. But they do not, as a rule, have the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract.

That’s what this is. Minors appear to enter into contracts all the time. Every time a minor clicks on a EULA they’re purporting to enter into a contract. But that does not make it valid. Just because a signature is on a line that is not enough to make a contract binding and enforceable.

The defendants are pulling this because in the US we’ve entered into a new wtf era in the courts and they’re simply hoping to get a judge to allow it to stick, but this whole “an eight year old successfully waived his rights” argument has no basis in law.

To put it another way I’m going to pivot and use a different example that more people are familiar with, and one that I care a lot about: underage marriage. Apologies in advance for the shoehorn but it illustrates the point.

This exact issue of being unable to legally enter into agreement, or provide legal consent, is why underage marriage is so problematic: it’s a legal trap for the minor, and essentially a form of legal slavery. Children can get married, but children have no legal power to initiate a legal proceeding (like getting a restraining order or filing for divorce) nor direct their own health care, even reproductive health, unless they act through a parent or legal guardian. If they are mistreated they can’t even be admitted to a shelter, since shelters have agreements and children cannot enter into contracts, period end of.

Legally, just because a child has married, they do NOT suddenly gain legal emancipation. This is another big misunderstanding. Emancipation happens solely by court order, not by marriage. Even the marriage itself required parental consent to be legally binding, depending on the exact age and location. The married minor is still legally a child, unable to execute or be bound to contracts. The exceptions to this are informal, such as when despite a child’s minority, others allow a child to go through the motions and honor an invalid contract anyway, OR formal, when the child has a legal guardian that is willing to enter into contract and genuinely act on the child’s own behalf.

And the worst of it is that in most states and under federal law, sex with a child that would otherwise be considered rape – in some cases, felony rape – becomes legal within marriage. In those situations, the marriage license becomes a “get out of jail free” card for a child rapist. That’s how few legal rights children have in reality.

There are organizations working hard to turn this around, but it’s an uphill battle. Here’s more information for anyone who wants the actual legal picture: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/

If you want to dress up as a monster that’s an easy way to do it.

For Google, the primary difference between a logged-in user and one who is not logged in is the absence of any contractual agreement that legally binds the anonymous user to terms assigned by Google.

I haven’t read a Google EULA in some time, but as I recall it was long and full of rights and waivers and privileges and protections you assign Google in regard to anything wherein you might possibly have legal standing. The log-in request is not universal, nor is it random, so it’s safe to assume as a hypothetical that for whatever reason, Google wants that in this specific scenario, in this specific geographical region.

On the other hand, if you’re not signed in – AND Google can’t link your anonymous use to an actual agreement you have with them elsewhere – Google just doesn’t have that same comfortably protected legal situation. (See Disney’s recent legal behavior for an example of why, if Google can still link your non-signed-in behavior to an existing EULA elsewhere in their walled garden, you may still be fucked.)

OP’s map seems to be located in the EU, which makes a legal difference as well. We already know that Google does whatever the fuck Google wants in the US, but in the EU laws tend to have more teeth as well as legislators very willing to go after violators.

All that said, I am not an attorney in Spain and I damn sure don’t work for Google, so don’t come at me lol.

This is the way. It’s up to the employer to provide adequate tools for the job, if they decide to make others off-limits.

There’s also the fact that an internet full of bots, AI slop, and privacy risks is making more people pull away from the online world. In our poll, 97% of people said the internet today was a hellscape compared to its early days, and it looks like things are only going to get worse.

Looks like the cure is inherent in the disease. Anyone else remember the early 90s when Usenet was just text-based fun and then some motherfucker thought it was a grand idea to run ads? I do, and it’s been downhill ever since.

It’s sad that it has come to this, but as usual a handful of greedy fuckers have ruined it for the rest of us. (My personal opinion is that big tech could have arrested this downhill slide at any point, even from back in the first days of email spam, but have chosen to monetize it every step of the way instead.)

Real humans are already individually opting out, one by one, as we each personally get sick of the slop and realize it’s just not helping anymore. For myself I’m only on intermittently, I’ve ditched all social media, Lemmy is all I participate in regularly now beyond the odd comment here and there, and that seems about right for me at this time.

I adjust it regularly, often just by going offline for days, but I had to see the problem before I could change it. I think that’s where a lot of people are, just now seeing it for the first time as a real problem affecting their quality of life directly.

But like any other addiction, the point of turning is different for everyone. These fuckers on the other end, filling everything with slop and running bots without end, are just speeding it all up.

Yeah, that does suck. At least you tried, and there will be no regrets: there’s literally nothing more you could have done. From where I sit it’s their loss: good workers don’t grow on trees, and they’re idiots to let a known good employee walk out the door in favor of an unknown. At least the hesitant ones, if needed, could be approached for a reference should you ever need it.

But in the meantime, you have a great attitude, the kind that sets you up to make the most of opportunities that come your way, and I am certain you’ll do well. That kind of thing comes through when you’re looking for jobs, and it’s a plus when someone can look at a shitty situation in prior employment and hold it in realistic proportion, however unfair it was. And this was indeed unfair. I genuinely wish you every success, and soon.

Dude. If you still want the job, you really had no obvious part in the disrespect, and the owner wasn’t part of the immediate rage firing, give it a day, let it cool off, then go see the owner directly.

Just be straightforward and honest, speaking as his equal (because you are): “I meant no disrespect, I really was just there and not a participant, I understand offense was given, but that was not my doing or intent. I liked this job, I enjoyed doing it, I thought I was doing well at it, and I can’t believe it’s gone just because I happened to be in the same room when this happened. Is there any way this outcome can be reconsidered, or is it set in stone?” Professional, straightforward, calm.

If the owner wasn’t a part of the direct confrontation you might be able to change his mind. I’m saying this because if I were your manager, the way you wrote your text would make me at least question the decision, and I’m hard to convince. People do shit in indignant rage they regret later, restaurant kitchens are wild places anyway, and I don’t know this guy and I don’t know you, but if you want that specific job back then it’s worth a shot. Good workers are worth keeping.

But you may not want it back. If not then just ignore this, chill for a day or two, and start looking for the next thing. Whatever you decide I hope it all works out for you.