Western powers support Israel because the Middle East is a strategically important region and Western powers have exactly one reliable partner there. I mean, look at what the House of Saud can get away with just for being a semi-reliable partner.
Can you block entire servers, though? Do you have the ability to even tell content apart based on server of origin? It's not clear that you can and the implication seems to be that the only thing you get out of hosting your own server is hosting your own data; it doesn't seem to offer you any sort of control over federation.
That's a dishonest way to look at what he said. An honest one would be that he has just as much right to criticize Democrats offering aid to Trump as the Democrats offering aid to Trump have a right to criticize Biden.
Biden: [Does things]
Anti-Biden Democrats: [He shouldn't be doing that.]
Fetterman: [They shouldn't be doing that.]
You: [Fetterman is anti-democracy and pro-censorship.]
So... "federation" without control? What's the point?
They stress that a difference between their federation and ActivityPub is that on ActivityPub "your “instance”, or server, determines your community, so your experience depends on which server you join" while for them "On Bluesky, your experience is based on what feeds and accounts you follow, and you can always participate in the global conversation (e.g. breaking news, viral posts, and algorithmic feeds)." and "Moderation on Bluesky is not tied to your server, like it is on Mastodon. Defederation, a way of addressing moderation issues in Mastodon by disconnecting servers, is not as relevant on Bluesky because there are other layers to the system."
The big difference is that I can't choose an instance that blocks/does not interact with the servers loaded with Nazis, terrorists, and/or child abusers? Why the hell is it of such paramount importance to Jack Dorsey that the rest of us are forced to interact with Nazis?
Yeah; reading the article it would seem "arguably legal" is probably a lot more accurate than "perfectly legal"
Now, there is a caveat in the EDA law. All weapons must be given away “as is, where is.” In other words, the U.S. government legally can’t pay for shipping.
But another caveat is that any weapons in Germany are excluded from this rule. Biden could ship those DPICMs to Germany aboard a few sealift ships and then declare them as excess to need before having the U.S. Army drop them off somewhere the Ukrainian armed forces would have no trouble retrieving them.
I mean, you can call this legal but when you're paying to ship equipment you've clearly decided is excess before declaring it "excess" in an attempt to get around the clear intent of the law...
Basically this comes down to: [The Executive Branch could use an arguably legal method to send to Ukraine 4 million 25 to 50 year old cluster shells that have been determined to be unreliable and unsafe]
The Quinnipiac University poll showed that 49 percent of registered voters support Biden and 45 percent support Trump, but 67 percent said the 81-year-old president is too old to serve another term.
The historical context in this case is the date on the article, which is during the 2016 Democratic Primary. It's a tortured attempt to cast a bad light on Hillary Clinton by proxy by casting Bill Clinton in a bad light by blaming him for something that, as you've pointed out, would have happened without him.
