←back to thread

139 points dotcoma | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.413s | source
Show context
dionidium ◴[] No.43603902[source]
> Blue checkmarks "used to mean trustworthy sources of information," Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said.

Obviously you can write a law that says anything you want, but as an aesthetic matter, this strikes me as pretty ridiculous. A company makes up a thing called a "blue checkmark" and then, what, it has to mean the same thing for the rest of all time? It's not like the new Twitter lied about what was happening. They said plainly that they were changing the checkmark system to mean something new. Why would anybody cheer a government stepping in to say, "no, sorry, you can't do that?"

replies(6): >>43603959 #>>43604023 #>>43604345 #>>43604359 #>>43606563 #>>43607023 #
knallfrosch[dead post] ◴[] No.43604023[source]
[flagged]
1. gruez ◴[] No.43604344[source]
>And we'll, wen can craft the law any way we like. We could even call it Twitter law.

You don't think crafting (in effect) bill of attainder is a bad idea?

replies(1): >>43606588 #
2. Zigurd ◴[] No.43606588[source]
<cough>TikTok</cough> and unlike that corrupt old world Europe, we have specific language in our constitution against bills of attainder.