I don’t think that is as much an issue as all of the potential issues that would be dragged up by discussing any of the questionable or explicitly illegal content hosted on Reddit. The first time anyone ever saw a Reddit mod was seeing an adult man argue it was ok for him to moderate a subreddit consisting solely pictures of underage girls titled jailbait.
None of the time that libertarian beliefs could protect civil liberties is it ever taken seriously. It exists solely to launder corporate protections and deregulation.
Nothing significant happen to the NSA after the Snowden leaks, nothing significant happened to the FISA court.
Also I don’t get how something like CBDC ever exists because of how powerful Visa is.
The way I would solve all of this is make disappearing servers so you can just share a server link and add people in the interface that way. I have almost never added people externally most of it comes from in server interactions.
All that matters is that Facebook continues to be generally disliked by anyone who would run the next Instagram/WhatsApp/Oculus.
But as recent events such as Figma show anything it probably just means another 0 so they have to spend 10,20,30 billion instead of the 1 or 3 they used to.
I know it’s only been a day or so but this is bad only because they are unbanning boring posters and none of the fun ones who got banned.
Sad to see paring back of moderation happen only to groups like this.
Yes, it’s practically impossible currently given both the size of their majority, and also the clear indications that a large number of Tory MPs would be personally voting themselves out of a job. (The current polling may well be underestimating the scale of the defeat)
It’s more likely that the Prime Minister will be kicked out.
But all those 'Red Wall' Tory MPs representing poor Northern constituencies are going to lose their jobs either way at this rate. They might calculate that they stand more chance of being reinstated under Rishi Sunak (or whoever) than they would of winning their seats again at the next election under Liz Truss. I don't think the Tories as a whole can let Truss carry on for many more days though as they are burning credibility faster than an Saturn rocket burns fuel. The country hasn't had an even vaguely competent leader since Cameron, this has mostly been ignored by people as they have been able to go about their daily lives as normal but the current shambles is affecting peoples finances across the spectrum and people are waking up to the fact that the Tories have dropped the ball.
Edit: totally missed the repeal - so this is no longer the situation.
Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which has governed how UK Parliamentary elections are called since 2011, an election could only be triggered outside of the normal five-year Parliamentary cycle by one of two scenarios: if two-thirds of the House of Commons voted in favour of one, or if the Government lost a vote of no confidence and no alternative government was confirmed by the House of Commons within 14 days.
2/3 vote in house is basically the only way it can happen.
I am trying to figure out what replaced it, and it appears the only way is for an election to occur is a) the Prime Minister to request and recieve consent from the Monarch, b) it has been 5 years since the last election.
I'd like to know if other constitutional norms have been restored as well (e.g., are supply bills & major manifesto bills automatically considered confidence votes?)
2019 as prior art required full passage through commons and lords. Without compliance of the governement getting a bill read is not going to necessarily be easy.
As far as I understand, the act prevents the prime minister from dissolving the parliament unilaterally, but in practice the parliament still only need a simple majority, by just passing a law stating 'notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliament Act, the parliament is dissolved'. This happened in 2019 ([1], [2]).
Or it could have just repelled the act, which is what happened this year.
This can happen when there is no entrenched constitution and the parliament has complete freedom to legislate.
Since either a no confidence vote without a new government (simple majority without a replacement government getting one) or a 2/3 vote would require a rebellion within the Tories, and the former would require fewer rebels, wouldn’t it necessarily be more plausible than a 2/3 vote.
I had missed the repeal, so these are academic now, however, were relevant back in the day, and were interesting in coalition times.
Voting no confidence path would allow the government to attempt to form another government (with a more unifying leader perhaps?) where there would be another round of votes / haggling till the 14 day limit to carry the confidence of the house. Getting the rebels to vote against the government multiple times over 2 weeks (they would be expelled from the party for the forthcoming election anyway) is extremely hard.
Getting 2/3s to vote against, while requiring more rebels, is politically probably easier, if a smallish minority have infected the party and are acting against the party core, and the opposition are dire. You can probably carry your safe seat and oust the toxic HQ leadership at the same time.
Both paths are effectively impossible. The idea back in the day was that you would just vote to repeal or amend the act, as it was easier than actually fullfilling the criteria of the act.
The King doesn't dissolve the government. The King can dissolve parliament and dismiss the government. If the King dissolves parliament, the people have to elect a new one. If the King dismisses the government, the King must immediately appoint a new one.
Texas is the opposite of this situation because they purposely didn’t connect their grid to anyone else. The US equivalent for mismanagement would be the Colorado River.
The real problem with this situation is we are at a point at which deploying fixes to these problems take so long that even discussing it feels useless.
The real answer is they want to reduce the chance of someone intentionally using it offline because it’s more convenient or easier in a specific situation.
