4 ms·

I don't think it's shocking at all. It's a fuckup, so what? All of the conspiracy theories and online discourse around this just show how stupid most conspiracy

I don't think it's shocking at all. It's a fuckup, so what? All of the conspiracy theories and online discourse around this just show how stupid most conspiracy theories are and how braindead so much online discourse has become. Just look at the Reddit thread on this, which currently has nearly 50k votes, and one of the top comments is "Treasonous", https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_of_the_united_states_website_has/ https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_o.... Like I wholeheartedly believe that the current administration may want to (and, IMO, already has) subvert large parts of the Constitution, but deleting a few paragraphs from the Library of Congress' online version of the Constitution is not how they're going to go about it. What, do people not think there are, I don't know, a couple million copies of the Constitution out and about? Do they think some judge is just going to open the Library of Congress website and go "Oh well, I know that part was there yesterday, but it's gone now so I guess we can't have a navy anymore." It's all just so dumb.

estearum 1y ago
No one is supposing this is the way they'll do it, only that this could be a way they do it. As you've already suggested, they're also already doing it other ways. There's a reason authoritarian regimes are known for destroying and modifying records. It's because they often destroy and modify records.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > only that this could be a way they do it. No, it couldn't. Again, just erasing sections of laws from websites is not how it is done. It's dumb to conflate what authoritarian regimes do to memory hole historical events (which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do) with just thinking "Yep, we'll just delete this law from the website and then we'll be good." This was obviously a clerical/administrative screw up, if only because the consequences are so clearly benign.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Meh, I'd be happy to know that. But in several other instances of "honest mistakes" from this administration, we've found out later they were quite deliberate violations of people's rights. For example from this Trump personal defense attorney → Deputy AG → freshly minted federal judge whose team "made a mistake" in allowing planes to take off despite court orders: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/emil-bove-doj-ignore-court-orders-whistleblower-1235370918/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/emil-bov...
      - tptacek 1y ago
        None of your rights have been violated here. This is a website.
        estearum 1y ago
        I didn't mean to suggest that they had in this particular instance! Edited to clarify.
  - radixdiaboli 1y ago
    This is a really strange take to me. If I go online to look up my rights from an official source, like the Library of Congress, and some of them are missing, that isn't benign. No, it hasn't changed the law, but it changes what I know about the law. Y'all act like the administration didn't rename the Gulf of Mexico like it changes the physical gulf or ownership status. Or direct museums about how to portray history. Or, historically, sharpie on a weather map. Removing or changing information as they find convenient is entirely reasonable to expect from the admin. That said, they rolled it back, so likely someone effed up.
    - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

estearum 1y ago

No one is supposing this is the way they'll do it, only that this could be a way they do it. As you've already suggested, they're also already doing it other ways. There's a reason authoritarian regimes are known for destroying and modifying records. It's because they often destroy and modify records.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> only that this could be a way they do it. No, it couldn't. Again, just erasing sections of laws from websites is not how it is done. It's dumb to conflate what authoritarian regimes do to memory hole historical events (which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do) with just thinking "Yep, we'll just delete this law from the website and then we'll be good." This was obviously a clerical/administrative screw up, if only because the consequences are so clearly benign.
- tptacek 1y ago
  I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Meh, I'd be happy to know that. But in several other instances of "honest mistakes" from this administration, we've found out later they were quite deliberate violations of people's rights. For example from this Trump personal defense attorney → Deputy AG → freshly minted federal judge whose team "made a mistake" in allowing planes to take off despite court orders: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/emil-bove-doj-ignore-court-orders-whistleblower-1235370918/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/emil-bov...
    - tptacek 1y ago
      None of your rights have been violated here. This is a website.
      - estearum 1y ago
        I didn't mean to suggest that they had in this particular instance! Edited to clarify.
- radixdiaboli 1y ago
  This is a really strange take to me. If I go online to look up my rights from an official source, like the Library of Congress, and some of them are missing, that isn't benign. No, it hasn't changed the law, but it changes what I know about the law. Y'all act like the administration didn't rename the Gulf of Mexico like it changes the physical gulf or ownership status. Or direct museums about how to portray history. Or, historically, sharpie on a weather map. Removing or changing information as they find convenient is entirely reasonable to expect from the admin. That said, they rolled it back, so likely someone effed up.
  - 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]