Søren Sofus Petersen

https://lnkd.in/gt6TumC3 -> Can the system that puts the legal army after him in order to force Trump out of politics suddenly attack Iran or Russia with an Obama-Biden-centered administration? -> 3 American soldiers were killed...The cause is ready and waiting to meet with the result.... -> Members of the media who were served like an army on the Red Sea... -> If this noise is created, who is cleaned with it? Gürültü lazım çünkü mevcut gürültü, ya susularak yada daha fazla gürültü yapılarak bastırılabilir... - Clown Zelensky? - Biden and his family? - And the others? It's time to be thrown down the slope yada yada cliff...Excuse me. American politics is too important to be handed over to Tump.

New Post: Trump’s campaign threatens Republicans for fundraising off his criminal convictions - https://lnkd.in/gbmYKSnC - As things usually go in Donald Trump's Republican Party, the money is all his, and anyone who tries to take so much as a penny is gonna answer to The Orange Menace. Immediately following his criminal convictions, adjudicated rapist, real estate fraud, and convicted felon, Donald Trump started fundraising. — Read the rest The post Trump's campaign threatens Republicans for fundraising off his criminal convictions appeared first on Boing Boing. - #news #business #world -------------------------------------------------- Download: Stupid Simple CMS - https://lnkd.in/g4y9XFgR -------------------------------------------------- or download at SourceForge - https://lnkd.in/gNqB7dnp

**Is the fight against misinformation in Australia taking a step back?** In a surprising move, Australia’s government has decided to withdraw a controversial bill aimed at combating misinformation online. Initially proposed by the Labor government, this legislation sought to impose hefty fines—up to 5% of global revenue—on tech giants that failed to control false information spreading on their platforms. This decision has ignited conversations about the balance between regulating online content and protecting freedom of speech. Supporters of the bill argued that stricter measures were necessary in an age where misinformation can have severe consequences, directly influencing public opinion and even election outcomes. These advocates believed that empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable rules would significantly mitigate misleading narratives and improve accountability among major digital platforms. However, critics raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship, suggesting such regulations might infringe on users' rights to free expression. They questioned whether imposing fines could lead companies to err on the side of caution, potentially stifling legitimate discourse while only making minor dents in truly harmful disinformation. By retracting this bill, Australia seems poised at a crossroads: How will they navigate future legislation addressing misinformation without clashing with fundamental rights? What alternative strategies might be more effective? The conversation isn't over; it’s evolving. Share your thoughts! Do you think regulation is necessary or do we risk losing essential freedoms if we push too hard? Connect with startups to drive your corporate innovation 🚀 Book a meeting! https://lnkd.in/dFYwmbHq #Misinformation #Australia #TechRegulation #FreedomOfSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #Accountability #PublicOpinion #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalRights #InnovationInTech Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dZcWqFP7

**Is the fight against misinformation in Australia taking a step back?** In a surprising move, Australia’s government has decided to withdraw a controversial bill aimed at combating misinformation online. Initially proposed by the Labor government, this legislation sought to impose hefty fines—up to 5% of global revenue—on tech giants that failed to control false information spreading on their platforms. This decision has ignited conversations about the balance between regulating online content and protecting freedom of speech. Supporters of the bill argued that stricter measures were necessary in an age where misinformation can have severe consequences, directly influencing public opinion and even election outcomes. These advocates believed that empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable rules would significantly mitigate misleading narratives and improve accountability among major digital platforms. However, critics raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship, suggesting such regulations might infringe on users' rights to free expression. They questioned whether imposing fines could lead companies to err on the side of caution, potentially stifling legitimate discourse while only making minor dents in truly harmful disinformation. By retracting this bill, Australia seems poised at a crossroads: How will they navigate future legislation addressing misinformation without clashing with fundamental rights? What alternative strategies might be more effective? The conversation isn't over; it’s evolving. Share your thoughts! Do you think regulation is necessary or do we risk losing essential freedoms if we push too hard? Connect with startups to drive your corporate innovation 🚀 Book a meeting! https://lnkd.in/dFYwmbHq #Misinformation #Australia #TechRegulation #FreedomOfSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #Accountability #PublicOpinion #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalRights #InnovationInTech Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dZcWqFP7

**Is the fight against misinformation in Australia taking a step back?** In a surprising move, Australia’s government has decided to withdraw a controversial bill aimed at combating misinformation online. Initially proposed by the Labor government, this legislation sought to impose hefty fines—up to 5% of global revenue—on tech giants that failed to control false information spreading on their platforms. This decision has ignited conversations about the balance between regulating online content and protecting freedom of speech. Supporters of the bill argued that stricter measures were necessary in an age where misinformation can have severe consequences, directly influencing public opinion and even election outcomes. These advocates believed that empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable rules would significantly mitigate misleading narratives and improve accountability among major digital platforms. However, critics raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship, suggesting such regulations might infringe on users' rights to free expression. They questioned whether imposing fines could lead companies to err on the side of caution, potentially stifling legitimate discourse while only making minor dents in truly harmful disinformation. By retracting this bill, Australia seems poised at a crossroads: How will they navigate future legislation addressing misinformation without clashing with fundamental rights? What alternative strategies might be more effective? The conversation isn't over; it’s evolving. Share your thoughts! Do you think regulation is necessary or do we risk losing essential freedoms if we push too hard? Connect with startups to drive your corporate innovation 🚀 Book a meeting! https://lnkd.in/dTxGsKrN #Misinformation #Australia #TechRegulation #FreedomOfSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #Accountability #PublicOpinion #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalRights #InnovationInTech Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dvw5kNah

**Is the fight against misinformation in Australia taking a step back?** In a surprising move, Australia’s government has decided to withdraw a controversial bill aimed at combating misinformation online. Initially proposed by the Labor government, this legislation sought to impose hefty fines—up to 5% of global revenue—on tech giants that failed to control false information spreading on their platforms. This decision has ignited conversations about the balance between regulating online content and protecting freedom of speech. Supporters of the bill argued that stricter measures were necessary in an age where misinformation can have severe consequences, directly influencing public opinion and even election outcomes. These advocates believed that empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable rules would significantly mitigate misleading narratives and improve accountability among major digital platforms. However, critics raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship, suggesting such regulations might infringe on users' rights to free expression. They questioned whether imposing fines could lead companies to err on the side of caution, potentially stifling legitimate discourse while only making minor dents in truly harmful disinformation. By retracting this bill, Australia seems poised at a crossroads: How will they navigate future legislation addressing misinformation without clashing with fundamental rights? What alternative strategies might be more effective? The conversation isn't over; it’s evolving. Share your thoughts! Do you think regulation is necessary or do we risk losing essential freedoms if we push too hard? Connect with startups to drive your corporate innovation 🚀 Book a meeting! https://lnkd.in/dFYwmbHq #Misinformation #Australia #TechRegulation #FreedomOfSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #Accountability #PublicOpinion #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalRights #InnovationInTech Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dZcWqFP7

**Is the fight against misinformation in Australia taking a step back?** In a surprising move, Australia’s government has decided to withdraw a controversial bill aimed at combating misinformation online. Initially proposed by the Labor government, this legislation sought to impose hefty fines—up to 5% of global revenue—on tech giants that failed to control false information spreading on their platforms. This decision has ignited conversations about the balance between regulating online content and protecting freedom of speech. Supporters of the bill argued that stricter measures were necessary in an age where misinformation can have severe consequences, directly influencing public opinion and even election outcomes. These advocates believed that empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable rules would significantly mitigate misleading narratives and improve accountability among major digital platforms. However, critics raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship, suggesting such regulations might infringe on users' rights to free expression. They questioned whether imposing fines could lead companies to err on the side of caution, potentially stifling legitimate discourse while only making minor dents in truly harmful disinformation. By retracting this bill, Australia seems poised at a crossroads: How will they navigate future legislation addressing misinformation without clashing with fundamental rights? What alternative strategies might be more effective? The conversation isn't over; it’s evolving. Share your thoughts! Do you think regulation is necessary or do we risk losing essential freedoms if we push too hard? Connect with startups to drive your corporate innovation 🚀 Book a meeting! https://lnkd.in/dFYwmbHq #Misinformation #Australia #TechRegulation #FreedomOfSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #Accountability #PublicOpinion #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalRights #InnovationInTech Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dZcWqFP7

**Is the fight against misinformation in Australia taking a step back?** In a surprising move, Australia’s government has decided to withdraw a controversial bill aimed at combating misinformation online. Initially proposed by the Labor government, this legislation sought to impose hefty fines—up to 5% of global revenue—on tech giants that failed to control false information spreading on their platforms. This decision has ignited conversations about the balance between regulating online content and protecting freedom of speech. Supporters of the bill argued that stricter measures were necessary in an age where misinformation can have severe consequences, directly influencing public opinion and even election outcomes. These advocates believed that empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable rules would significantly mitigate misleading narratives and improve accountability among major digital platforms. However, critics raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship, suggesting such regulations might infringe on users' rights to free expression. They questioned whether imposing fines could lead companies to err on the side of caution, potentially stifling legitimate discourse while only making minor dents in truly harmful disinformation. By retracting this bill, Australia seems poised at a crossroads: How will they navigate future legislation addressing misinformation without clashing with fundamental rights? What alternative strategies might be more effective? The conversation isn't over; it’s evolving. Share your thoughts! Do you think regulation is necessary or do we risk losing essential freedoms if we push too hard? Connect with startups to drive your corporate innovation 🚀 Book a meeting! https://lnkd.in/dFYwmbHq #Misinformation #Australia #TechRegulation #FreedomOfSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #Accountability #PublicOpinion #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalRights #InnovationInTech Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dZcWqFP7

Grooming 101: Tips and Tricks for Maintaining Your Afghan Hound's Luxurious Coat Grooming 101: Tips and Tricks for Maintaining Your Afghan Hound's Luxurious Co... Read More - https://lnkd.in/dPz7a4z5

Kamala Harris has showcased her political naivete, and veteran legislators such as Joe Manchin, retiring Senator from West Virginia, are unimpressed. Harris has come out advocating for ending the Senate filibuster in order to pass legislation to codify the Roe v Wade standard of government regulation of a woman's body with respect to abortion -- and Manchin is having none of that. ***** The West Virginia independent, one of the staunchest defenders of the potent delay tactic in the Senate, told CNN on Tuesday that he wouldn’t back her candidacy now — despite signaling earlier this month he was getting ready to do so. “Shame on her,” Manchin, who is retiring at year’s end, said in the Capitol. “She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy. It’s the only thing that keeps us talking and working together. If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids.” ***** https://lnkd.in/grZHFJMg The filibuster is frustrating for those who simply want to see legislation pass both Houses of Congress and made statutory law, but its effective requirement that the Senate obtain a supermajority for significant legislation serves a vital purpose: it obligates both parties in the Senate to work together and achieve meaningful compromise in order to see legislation passed. The filibuster is how the Senate preserves the voice of the political minority. It is true that the filibuster is likely what would prevent any effort by Democrats to pass federal legislation to re-establish the Roe v Wade structures governing women's bodies...but that is exactly the point. President Trump has defended the Dobbs decision overturning Roe by pointing out that such questions belong at the state level. He makes not merely a valid argument, but also the correct argument. The 10th Amendment reserves such debates to the states and that is exactly where the abortion question belongs. One of Roe's great juridical sins was arrogating to the Supreme Court a right the Constitution preserved for the states. The filibuster is the legislative hurdle which counters Congressional temptations to commit that same sin.

The ‘Emergency Powers’ Risk of a Second Trump Presidency #adviceguru https://lnkd.in/dVpQzf6e #election #adviceguru #donaldtrump #emergency #policy #politics #powers #presidency #risk #surveillance #technologyblog #trump

New Post: What’s Left of Diddy’s Assets? - https://lnkd.in/d5AMErAZ - As Bad Boy Records founder Sean “Diddy” Combs sits in a Brooklyn prison awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges and prepares to fend off multiple civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault, those in the music industry are asking how much of his wealth could be at stake. Sources tell Billboard that the hip-hop mogul has sold many of the assets that earned him hundreds of millions of dollars. And Forbes estimated that Combs’ net worth — once fueled by ventures in music, fashion, liquor and cable TV — has fallen from approximately $740 million in 2019 to $400 million as of this past June. Related What Comes Next In Diddy's Racketeering and Sex Trafficking Case? 09/26/2024 Federal prosecutors and attorneys for the alleged victims likely will go after the money Combs earned from his businesses and other assets, and his own legal defense potentially could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars as well. That said, prosecutors will need to prove that the businesses were in some way connected to the alleged crimes, to which Combs has pled not guilty. Lawyers representing individuals suing Combs in civil court do not need to meet that barrier of proof. It is unclear when a jury trial will take place for the federal charges, and the many civil lawsuits he faces are at various stages of adjudication. Combs’ attorneys, representatives and federal prosecutors did not respond to requests for comment. Here is a breakdown of Combs’ current financial picture viewed through his music, real estate and cable TV assets: Bad Boy Records While Combs began diversifying his investments long ago, his core music industry holdings have dissipated. He once owned his masters and publishing rights through Bad Boy Records. Currently, he may still own his publishing rights and albums recorded from 2010 onward, but he likely no longer owns the albums he recorded before 2009, which were the most successful of his career. B.I.G. and Diddy That’s because of a joint venture Combs entered with Warner Music Group for the entire Bad Boy catalog in 2005. The deal ended in 2009 with WMG retaining full ownership of the vast majority, if not all, of the catalog released by Bad Boy prior to that year. Those include the catalogs of The Notorious B.I.G., Faith Evans, Mase and another dozen or so platinum albums by Bad Boy artists. In June, Billboard estimated that Diddy’s own catalog brings in $2.4 million annually in recorded masters revenue, as well as $600,000 in publishing revenue, of which his share is $222,000. We estimated his catalog