Once the encryption schemes are broken, it’s not just posterity, but every malicious actor with access to encryption-breaking tech will have a field day.
I don’t mind a large collection of data about me being made available to historians, I just mind that happening with my contemporaries.
A better comparison is with studio-owned movie theaters, which eventually led to the United States’ Paramount Antitrust Consent Decree (which was the law of the land for movies until the DOJ killed this ruling in 2020.)
I don’t feel that studios should get to have their own streaming services much like how I don’t feel movie studios should be allowed to run their own theaters.
For all of its faults, cable had a ton of competition between studios on the same distribution system, often with multiple channels with the same focus by entirely different studios. With current streaming services, ther are more accounts to keep track of, completely different (and often lackluster) UX between each streaming service which can make navigating a pain, and instead of competing with new content it can be just as- if not more- viable to buy up as much pop culture video content as possible and centralize it behind one studio-owned streaming services’ paywall. (Looking at you, Disney.)
If streaming services weren’t allowed to have their own studios, we’d probably have a better streaming landscape than we currently do.
Yes, but Senate approval for higher promotions is supposed to function as a check on the presidents’ military powers. I’m by no means an expert, but I think the idea is that having the Senate vote to approve or deny promotions of a certain level or above keeps the president from installing a bunch of loyal followers to key positions and then dissolving the other branches of government through threat or use of his new personal military force.
We means-test student financial and medical aid based on total household income regardless of whether other people in the home actually contribute to your finances. Similarly, this could mean people who don’t actually benefit from the wealth of their families (re: adult children suffering financial abuse from their wealthy parents) could be barred from holding office regardless of their actual circumstances, behavior, or political beliefs.
I feel it’s be unethical to put into place a system of political exclusion in the first place, but especially if it could affect people who aren’t actually causing harm themselves and are only guilty by association or the circumstances of their birth.
It’d also probably require a constitutional amendment, because it’s adding additional eligibility requirements on public office positions, which are outlined in the constitution, iirc.
Instead of barring people from political office based on our means-testing practices, why not just institute a progressive wealth tax that caps at 100%, with a significant part of the funds generated dedicated to enforcing tax laws on the wealthy?
Yes. Former presidents do not lose their benefits if they’re convicted of crimes and sent to prison; changing that would take an act of Congress, and there’s probably not enough political will or support to curtail the executive branch in such a way.
If he’s actually given a prison sentence and not home confinement, though, I feel that they’d likely hold him in a military prison- for his own safety, to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn’t keep committing crimes or attempt to flee, and to dissuade jailbreak attempts by outside actors.