647
Gaetz ethics report should stay sealed because he's a "private citizen," says House Speaker Johnson
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
647 points (98.2% liked)
News
23634 readers
2812 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be fair... IMO I think that idea is mislabeled and misunderstood.
Now the idea of opposing porn is just plain stupid. I'd expect any teenager to get their hands on porn and going against that is nonsense. But I'd say the labeling saying that it's watching porn with your son, is very misleading.
The point of it is, it's just a porn blocker with a detection switch, it's not so you and your son can brag to each-other over what porn you are into. It's made basically a switch to rat you out if you tried to bypass it.
IE that would be like if an alcoholic had a device that sends his wife an alert any time he tries to get an alcoholic drink. It's made to discourage you from trying because you'd be caught.
Again I fully disagree with that software because, I don't see porn itself as inherently harmful, but if you accept the idea that porn is harmful, I see it as a reasonable method to try and discourage yourself from accessing it.
It’s funny that you are saying all of this considering we are both discussing facts about the current leader of the house of representatives in the USA
The 'don't go fishing with just one mormon/evangelical/etc.' argument.
The accountability partner being his son (over whom he has some power) kinda nullifies the concept.
I still have to say what it is, is meant to be a very strong deterant rather than sharing. Now again I do think it's stupid and bullshit to consider porn use a problem unless it's actually causing an impact in life. The point is in theory he'd be mortified if his son were to catch him looking at porn, therefore he won't look at porn because he knows his son would find out. The idea of it is to show his son he's not looking at porn, and to keep his son from looking at porn. The software blocks most porn, and sends out a notification to the other person when it has to block something, and then gives a list of everything that he did visit, which would make it apparent if say he were to happen to find something that slipped through.
The point is still that it isn't sharing porn with his son... because the intention, and most likely the results are, none of the reports will have porn because it's a deterant. Realistically if Mike Johnson is going to look at porn, He's going to use it on a device that he didn't install the software on that his son doesn't know he has. The power portion of it is kind of irrelevant, yes it's true his son can't ground him... but his son would call him a hypocrite.
Again the bigger key is, these morons think looking at porn is a serious problem to worry about, and they are willing to go through and waste so much time and effort, in ways that's likely to constantly interupt regular internet use. The idea that it would be used in a "ooh I see you were watching X, that's my favorite fetish too!", I find misrepresentative of how these things actually work.
Kind of like the old joke. Never invite a baptist to your party, he will drink all of your beer. Instead invite 2 baptists to your party, and they won't touch a drop.