News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by wrongagainyyyy on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:04AM (#46376178)
No, it's more like an ambassador that's appointed by the president, you see we have presidential tickets and you get the two people you vote for, which is different from voting for someone then having the person you vote for decide who to appoint.

Yes technically the us 'electors' could vote for a different presidential ticket, but that's never happened in practice and even then their options are generally limited by who ran, electors can't pick just anyone.

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by saubeidl on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:08AM (#46376220)
Technically there is a level of indirection even in the presidency, but sure.

Nobody ever complains about ambassadors not being democratic though. Same thing goes for, idk, a Secretary of State or whatever, they all go through the same process.

Only when it comes to EU institutions people can't hide their hatred and can't help themselves but make the same old dishonest claim.

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by letsthinkmoreok on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:21AM (#46376336)
So there's even so bigger differences because an ambassadors are appointed and can be easily removed, also us ambassadors don't all huddle together, elect leaders between them then get busy making regulations that impact their original constituints, it might be closer to say federal chairmen, once appointed extremely hard to rescind and then are given real powers.

The federal reserve isn't known as especially democratic.

Only people being dishonest are those who ignore massive speech restrictions in europe. Look up cj Hopkins. I could go on and on and on. Sadly my comment likely to never even be seen because of how aggressive hn is whenever there's any intelligent push back to the progressive/liberal agenda.

Edit. If your takeaway aftertwo minute search on cj hopkins is lol Nazis are bad, then you have much more profound problems with research and basic understanding of reality then I can assist you with. Try going through the actual court documents and primary sources for once in your life instead of just letting whichever source of truth you trust to propagandize you.

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by saubeidl on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:22AM (#46376350)
> Look up cj Hopkins

Yikes, I just did. Trivializing the holocaust in Germany of all places is not a good look.

Edit: This is exclusively based on the primary source - a book cover where the guy was using a swastika (!!!) to critise a policy he didn't like - i.e. made light of the holocaust. If you don't understand why that's completely unacceptable, I don't know what to tell you.

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by letsthinkmoreok on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:52AM (#46376595)
Again, your lack of research is troubling. Der spiegle has done the exact same cover, but because it was pushing pro government opinions it was ok.

I'll help you out one last time since you seem to be somewhat trying...maybe https://off-guardian.org/2024/10/01/guilty

Cj hopkins is just one example, there are many more.

Edit: ok. You no longer are arguing in good faith, you clearly just have an agenda and will twist whatever I present to you to further that agenda. Can't have a good faith debate with someone who lacks principles. One cover trivializing the Holocaust and the other... Doesn't... Because it suits my narrative. It's just so scummy. Anyway, you've camped this thread and posted more then anyone else here, so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by saubeidl on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:56AM (#46376631)
Context matters.

It's one thing to use something for documentary purposes or in art. It's another to use it to make light of the holocaust like this guy did. It's all clearly written in our law.

If that person didn't want to follow our law, why did he come here? Why do we have to bother with criminal immigrants that don't want to integrate into our way of life?

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by orwin on Thursday December 25, 2025 @03:39AM (#46383048)
Didn't it happened once? Southern democrat great electors voted for the republican Vice president, because the democrat vice-president had a non-white wife, and this was forbidden under US law?
Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by nailer on Monday December 29, 2025 @02:33AM (#46418289)
Close:

Virginia’s 23 Democratic electors (Southern) refused to vote for Democratic VP candidate Richard Mentor Johnson due to his open common-law relationship with Julia Chinn, an enslaved woman of mixed race (octoroon). Interracial marriage was illegal under anti-miscegenation laws. They voted for Van Buren (president) but switched VP votes to William Smith (another Democrat), denying Johnson a majority. The Senate elected Johnson anyway.