Musk just said that unverified users will only be allowed to view 600 tweets a day before being rate limited, so everyone should get ready to welcome some new tumblr neighbours
Is that why itβs down right now?? Or is that incidental to some other bullshit
As far as Iβve been able to determine there are currently (July 1 2023) up to three different bullshits going on
(1) Unverified aka non paid accounts can only view 600 tweets a day and new unverified accounts can only view 300. This shows up as an error telling you youβre rate limited.
(2) Nobody can view any tweets without being logged in. This shows up as a βsomething went wrongβ error.
(3) I have heard that Twitter is also currently DDOSing itself somehow β that is, trying to look at its own pages so often that nobody else can get through to load them β but I havenβt been affected by or been able to verify that, or figure out whether itβs linked to one of the other two issues.
[ID: A tweet from Elon Muskβs official Twitter account that says, βTo address extreme levels of data scraping & system manipulation, weβve applied the following temporary limits: - Verified accounts are limited to reading 6000 posts/day - Unverified accounts to 600 posts/day - New unverified accounts to 300/dayβ. End ID.]
Already made a post about this but thereβs a good chance Elonβs lying and the servers are just completely unstable because he refused to pay a contract with Google
me for the first 33 years of my life: my dad used to say βwhat would happen if you woke up on the titanic?? think about itβ when he was tucking me in at night from at least age 5 and up, a form of psychological torture
me in my 33rd year of life: my dad optimistically thought i would have $250k to blow on something stupid by now and shut that shit down at the jump in the 90s
they seem to not like it when we doubt their credibility so i think the best thing to do now is further trash the reputation of an illegitimate SCOTUS. time to keep crossing that line. attending law school doesnβt mean you canβt have a shit take on something
Questioning the government is literally the founding principle of this country
Today’s court ruling weakening discrimination protections for LGBTQ people stands out as extraordinarily strange to me for the simple fact that there was no case. The web designer in question never received a request to create a website for a gay wedding, but instead argued that a hypothetical situation in which she did would violate her rights. I’ve never really heard of anything like this before— how does she even have standing to sue? Can @radiofreederry or someone with more knowledge of legalese than me elaborate on this?
In this latest case, there is no website and no wedding—just an argument from an anti-LGBTQ group in search of the court’s favor…
No person has hired Smith to create a wedding website. In fact, Smith has never designed a wedding website, according to her petition to the court. As such, there is no client Smith has told she is rejecting due to her stated religious beliefs that marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman. In the absence of all that, ADF has, instead, fashioned Smith as the victim of an injury that has never occurred.
So who has hypothetically victimized Smith? A Colorado anti-discrimination law, which, since 2008, has included protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ADF claims Smith’s desire “to bring glory to God by creating unique expression that shares her religious beliefs of creating wedding websites” is thwarted by this law “because she only wants to make websites that comport with her values that same-sex marriage is illegitimate.” Were Smith to get into the wedding website business, the anti-discrimination law “would force me to say things about marriage I disagree with,” Smith wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Times, when her case was argued at the Supreme Court last December…
Can the court rule on thought experiments?
I’ve been going insane about this because it seems to me that there would literally be no standing in this case. I think I need to dig deeper into this because I feel like this should have been thrown out several courts down for simple failure to state a claim on which relief may be sought, and surely the defense should have been able to figure that out no later than the discovery phase of the initial action.
It looks like the ADF is arguing that the case counts as a “Pre-enforcement challenge,” because Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014) found that “An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is ‘certainly impending,’ or there is a 'substantial risk’ that the harm will occur.” So she would likely have standing to sue if there were “substantial risk” she’d be put into her hypothetical situation. But how can she be at “substantial risk” of having someone ask her to make a gay wedding website when she’s never made a wedding website before? This whole thing stretches credulity
