Who are these parents letting their kids work underage and even working overnight?? Should be holding them accountable too.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
If I were to guess, the parents were fully aware and allowed this to happen because they needed their child's income to help support the family.
Just got an Apple News notification that former president Jimmy Carter is now in Hospice Care.
Edit:
www.axios.com
Edit:
Jimmy Carter to begin receiving hospice care
The former president made the decision after a series of short hospital stays.
www.axios.com
Last edited:
Nee Lewman
बैस्टर्ड
This is a tangent but directly related to my life right now.
Were you aware that they removed all break language from the FLSA except for minors and breastfeeding mothers which means that some states, like mine, have removed their language about breaks as well?
Yeah… the federal government isn’t needed…. My ass.
Were you aware that they removed all break language from the FLSA except for minors and breastfeeding mothers which means that some states, like mine, have removed their language about breaks as well?
Yeah… the federal government isn’t needed…. My ass.
Most of the time the minors are immigrants/illegals and this sort of stuff is common practice in Central American countries. @RenegadeMonster is right, often their families need their income to live. I had a friend in high school who didn’t get to do anything after school because she worked at a grocery store. She never did any overnights but she would have to surrender her pay to her mom so they could pay bills like electricity.
yeah, the work these teens were doing is illegal for any minor. Also, with the exception of farming, in most states a teenager can't get a work permit until they are 16 and have many restrictions on allowed job duties or hours they can work. In MA minors can't work past 10:00pm or start work before 7:00am. Again, with the exception of farming where they can start earlier.
The SCOTUS is to begin hearing oral arguments this week on a case about the internet, and the fuling could have direct ramifications that affect the operation of this forum.
Section 230, a law that's been around since the internets infancy is up for debate. Section 230 was put into place to protect websites. Websites could not be held liable for what people post on them. Liability starts and ends with the person who posted the content. Section 230 also allows for websites to moderate content posted by people on the internet.
Without section 230, the internet would not exist as we know it today. Running a website startups would have a much higher barrier to entry due to liability. They could quickly be sued out of existence over what users posts. The rich and powerful would be able to bury them with lawsuits to silence any discussions or content they didn't like which would likely result in the startup shutting down.
Section 230 also automatically applies to anything on the internet.
In recent years Section 230 has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, but for very different reasons.
Republicans concerns are over content moderation. They feel the internet is liberal and has a viewpoint-based content moderation that silences conservatives free speech.
Democrats concerns are over the liability shield. Section 230 allows websites to escape accountability for hosting hate speech and misinformation. If the website doesn't moderate and allows this content, and may even promote it with it's on algorithms, there is no way to remove the content if the user who posted it is unwilling to remove it themselves.
So essentially, Republicans want to control moderation, Democrats want to be able to limit the liability shield so that lawsuits can take down hate speech and misinformation.
However, with how dysfunctional our government has been, no changes have been made and now it's in the hands of the SCOTUS to decide.
The likely outcome of the courts would narrow section 230 with the current lawsuit, so that that the liability shield does not apply to any users content that gets recommended / is part of a feed generated by the sites algorithm.
An additional case regarding content moderation under section 230 is also on the docket for later on in this term. And that case could end up removing content moderation protections and sending it back to congress to update the law. Republicans would like to heavily regulate content moderation, and the law would define what and how content is moderated. And they would also like to hold websites liable for 1st amendment violations.
Section 230, a law that's been around since the internets infancy is up for debate. Section 230 was put into place to protect websites. Websites could not be held liable for what people post on them. Liability starts and ends with the person who posted the content. Section 230 also allows for websites to moderate content posted by people on the internet.
Without section 230, the internet would not exist as we know it today. Running a website startups would have a much higher barrier to entry due to liability. They could quickly be sued out of existence over what users posts. The rich and powerful would be able to bury them with lawsuits to silence any discussions or content they didn't like which would likely result in the startup shutting down.
Section 230 also automatically applies to anything on the internet.
In recent years Section 230 has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, but for very different reasons.
Republicans concerns are over content moderation. They feel the internet is liberal and has a viewpoint-based content moderation that silences conservatives free speech.
Democrats concerns are over the liability shield. Section 230 allows websites to escape accountability for hosting hate speech and misinformation. If the website doesn't moderate and allows this content, and may even promote it with it's on algorithms, there is no way to remove the content if the user who posted it is unwilling to remove it themselves.
So essentially, Republicans want to control moderation, Democrats want to be able to limit the liability shield so that lawsuits can take down hate speech and misinformation.
However, with how dysfunctional our government has been, no changes have been made and now it's in the hands of the SCOTUS to decide.
The likely outcome of the courts would narrow section 230 with the current lawsuit, so that that the liability shield does not apply to any users content that gets recommended / is part of a feed generated by the sites algorithm.
An additional case regarding content moderation under section 230 is also on the docket for later on in this term. And that case could end up removing content moderation protections and sending it back to congress to update the law. Republicans would like to heavily regulate content moderation, and the law would define what and how content is moderated. And they would also like to hold websites liable for 1st amendment violations.
Thinking more about the above, couldn't this open a paradox where a website could both be sued and held liable for moderating users posted content for violating their first amendment rights, but if they don't moderate it, be sued by the rich and powerful to take said content down if it's disfavorable to them. A no win situation.
My mind is blown by this.
A Harvard graduate, who graduated near the top of her class in 2020, makes more money from her part time Twitch streaming in Cosplay than she does at her full time job at a fortune 500 company.
Think about that.
What does this say about what companies value are labor and how much they are actually paying us.
A Harvard graduate, who graduated near the top of her class in 2020, makes more money from her part time Twitch streaming in Cosplay than she does at her full time job at a fortune 500 company.
Think about that.
What does this say about what companies value are labor and how much they are actually paying us.
The Trump administration miscalculated benefit of better brakes on trains carrying explosive fuels
<b>Billings, Mont.</b> • President Donald Trump’s administration miscalculated the potential benefits of putting better brakes on trains that haul explosive fuels when it scrapped an Obama-era rule over cost concerns, The Associated Press has found.
So, not only have railroads deferred upkeep for decades any safety improvements proposed by the federal government either end up getting killed under GOP budget cuts, or like PTC, the deadline for railroads to comply has been delayed indefinitely.
Edit: Not sure why that Facebook post won't embed, but it basically said this deadly toxic train derailment in Ohio could have been prevented had the train been using electronic brakes. And that Trump is to blame.
Last edited:
Russia is suspending all participation in the nuclear weapons treaty.
Is this just them blowing smoke or is it something to be concerned about?
Is this just them blowing smoke or is it something to be concerned about?
avecigrec
Well-Known Member
Definitely concern.
I think it’s in response to this. A Russian/US war would mean that the nukes come out.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
Yeah it’s in response to the visit for sure but I hate the subtext of that tweet. Russia is waging war on its sovereign neighbour. America may be fighting a proxy war but they certainly aren’t the aggressor here.
Regardless of whether we are the aggressor or not, both sides have decided to throw fuel on this fire. Maybe you can’t make treaties with Putin, but we are effectively blowing raspberries at him.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
Perhaps but equally we have a moral duty to aid Ukraine in any way we can. Russia prevailing gives them the message that we’re willing to sacrifice the former soviet satelite states to their influence. Putin absolutely does not respond to soft power.
Ukraine is now stuck in a war of attrition. Something’s got to give in this situation. Either we need to commit to boots on the ground (US military troops) or we have to negotiate a cease fire. To signal in the way Biden is doing without committing US troops just means more death for the people living in Ukraine.
avecigrec
Well-Known Member
Boots on the ground all but guarantees nuclear escalation.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
Does a cease fire achieve anything other than Russia annexing more of Ukraine and then returning in 4 or 5 years to finish the job? American boots on the ground is an actual American declaration of war on Russia. I don’t think that American and Russian soldiers were engaged in direct warfare even at the height of the Cold War? It’s such a dicey situation right now.
Especially after Putin said he would use nuclear weapons to defend all Russian territory. And he considers parts of Ukraine Russian territory. Even though internationally, we don't recognize his land grab.