3 ms·

> 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 wh

> 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.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > 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... No, we aren't. Those are two different things - heck, I literally said "which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do", and I was referring to specific instances of stuff like this, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286299/nsa-museum-dei-exhibit-women-people-of-color-trump https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286299/nsa-museum-dei-.... My whole point is that raising your pitchforks over obvious clerical errors makes it that much harder to identify real attempts of deception. I think tptacek hit the nail on the head with his "I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign" comment.
  - radixdiaboli 1y ago
    So on the one hand, you acknowledge that the admin has done similar things. On the other hand, you think it's "obvious" that they didn't do this thing. Which, again, is similar to other things. That they have done. The best advice I've ever heard, I'm going to proffer to you: remove the word "obvious" from your vocabulary. I actually don't really care whether it's benign or not. Not everyone cares about this as much as you do. I just think soapbox warrioring needs to be addressed.
jerlam 1y ago
Why would someone be editing a copy of the Constitution in the first place, knowing full well that it doesn't make any real legal change?
- tptacek 1y ago
  It's not a "copy of the Constitution"; it's a site about the Constitution. If you Google "US Constitution", the top of the search page will be the National Archives transcription. This is just people wanting to be het up about something. How would this particular Constitutional heist even work?
- beefnugs 1y ago
  The way it works is they do a hundred illegal things all at once, and see what gets through, see what people band together and spend time on. To accomplish that they demand 100 changes all over the place to official words/documents. Then on "the day" they command everyone to do all the changes. This particular incident, is a mistake by some web admin, who forgot to hold off until "the day" it is all suppose to change It is an accidental glimpse into what they are putting real effort into, its unbelievable what they are already getting away with and what will keep coming
quantified 1y ago
For what reason would anyone be editing text of the constitution? It's not dynamic. Probably just another less-important thing tossed out there to keep the distraction index high.

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.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> 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... No, we aren't. Those are two different things - heck, I literally said "which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do", and I was referring to specific instances of stuff like this, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286299/nsa-museum-dei-exhibit-women-people-of-color-trump https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286299/nsa-museum-dei-.... My whole point is that raising your pitchforks over obvious clerical errors makes it that much harder to identify real attempts of deception. I think tptacek hit the nail on the head with his "I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign" comment.
- radixdiaboli 1y ago
  So on the one hand, you acknowledge that the admin has done similar things. On the other hand, you think it's "obvious" that they didn't do this thing. Which, again, is similar to other things. That they have done. The best advice I've ever heard, I'm going to proffer to you: remove the word "obvious" from your vocabulary. I actually don't really care whether it's benign or not. Not everyone cares about this as much as you do. I just think soapbox warrioring needs to be addressed.

jerlam 1y ago

Why would someone be editing a copy of the Constitution in the first place, knowing full well that it doesn't make any real legal change?

tptacek 1y ago
It's not a "copy of the Constitution"; it's a site about the Constitution. If you Google "US Constitution", the top of the search page will be the National Archives transcription. This is just people wanting to be het up about something. How would this particular Constitutional heist even work?
beefnugs 1y ago
The way it works is they do a hundred illegal things all at once, and see what gets through, see what people band together and spend time on. To accomplish that they demand 100 changes all over the place to official words/documents. Then on "the day" they command everyone to do all the changes. This particular incident, is a mistake by some web admin, who forgot to hold off until "the day" it is all suppose to change It is an accidental glimpse into what they are putting real effort into, its unbelievable what they are already getting away with and what will keep coming

quantified 1y ago

For what reason would anyone be editing text of the constitution? It's not dynamic. Probably just another less-important thing tossed out there to keep the distraction index high.