Sounds a lot like American sovereign citizens. SovCits believe America is a corporation that was set up on top of the Articles of Confederation, (which was the precursor to the American Constitution). They basically believe that they can refuse to do business with the “corporation” (government) and be able to break any laws that aren’t written in the Articles of Confederation.

It’s where the “I’m not driving, I’m traveling” memes come from, because the articles of confederation mentioned a right to freely travel. So the SovCits think they can drive without a valid license or vehicle registration, which leads to lots of police dashcam footage of SovCits getting tased during traffic stops when they become irate or try to flee.

Technically speaking every country is a company and government is supervisory board elected by citizens that are owners that pay wages that are called tax. Just the purpose of country establishement is different or used to be different before 21th century. Right now the differentce is not so much visible as it was 100 or even 1000 years ago where people that were government leaders (kings, princes, lords, army generals) fought with people for independence and human rights. Right now elected people are no different than influencers or actors. They just do stuff to get to the table, not more not less.

Privacy? You can’t have privacy.

It’s to block access to CSAM. Shame it blocks everything else.

The word used is “Disrupt” which implies you cannot impede access to them even if you offer an alternative method.

Trump wants to weaponise the FCC to go against social media companies who “ban free speech” or whatever, just like Elon complained about before buying Twitter, and like all other right wingers are so mad about. But if the FCC doesn’t have any authority to regulate ISPs, why should it have authority to regulate social media companies. Not that the courts seem to care about precedent anymore, but that’s the silver lining they are looking for.

It means that folks are still expecting logic and consistency out of US lawmakers.

Fair point. But I just believe it goes to show that more websites need to be available on the darknet. Not because it’s a scary or bad place to be, but because it can’t be censored. Not nearly as easily, anyway. Top level domains can very easily be seized by the domain registrar or ICANN, etc. But since onion domains use keys, it’s impossible to seize them without seizing the server they run on.

The vast majority of people are woefully ill-prepared for an adversarial internet.

I’m not one for conspiracy theories but I could see where some come from that TikTok is made to dumb down the generation and make them even more addicted than local versions (FB, IG, YT).
And with how much weight is behind Tiktok they are probably a very good entry for outside adversaries into local networks.

I mean how many have installed AliExpress or WeChat on their phone? Not many have gizmo apps from China (like DJI) but TikTok? Oh boy a fuckload of people have that.

That’s funny because the local amazon delivery contractor doesn’t have license plates on their rental delivery trucks just like SovCits. I hadn’t thought of that but yes corporations have become sovereign citizens.

The states never see that money though. It’s directly from blue state workers’ paychecks and never passes through state owned bank accounts.

Yeah, we’ve got some T-decks and so far it’s only been a novelty and the intended purpose is just so we can text from a decent distance if infrastructure goes down. Will probably also see some occasional use camping as a backup for our radios with a T-beam attached to a bear bag up in a tree as a relay.

Can be used to transfer data between app, like location pins in ATAK

That 0% hurts so much.

You might be interested in an episode of Linux Unplugged from a few months ago that goes into Meshtastic quite nicely.

https://linuxunplugged.com/584

There’s also this link with a ton of resources for Meshtastic:

https://github.com/ShakataGaNai/awesome-meshtastic/

So they are well within their rights to pass a law setting up the FCC to promulgate regulations based on the Telecommunications Act.

The Supreme Court apparently disagreed, both in this specific case and more generally when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court basically said “if an agency is going to make a regulation it needs to be very specifically based on a law that says they can do that.” So they’re saying that Congress is going to have to pass some actual laws about net neutrality before the FCC can make regulations enforcing it. The fact that agencies have been making those regulations without laws backing them up is the problem here.

Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of Congressional votes in favor of an AUMF, as outlined in the War Powers Act.

That happened, sure. I’m saying it shouldn’t have. The US went to war without a declaration of war, which is something that should be made by Congress. By passing generic “the President can bomb whatever he wants to” legislation Congress is shirking a responsibility that’s supposed to be theirs.

If you want to have a government where the President is in charge of deciding when to go to war, go ahead and have one. By setting up a constitution that says that’s how it’s supposed to work. Don’t have a constitution that says “here’s how war is supposed to be declared” and then just go do something else instead of that.