Sometimes i look at my shit because it can say something about my health. Despite the content being trash, doesn’t mean there can be no value in being able to access it.

Over here:

A) you have a legal right to legal representation, there is a social justice system where lawyers work for a set price.
B) if you bring something to court, you have to pay a few, also if the case gets dismissed.
C) Not bringing a lawyer does not automatically mean someone is in contempt of court.

And i believe there is some law here where you got be charged for a crime if you harras people, i think this would be triggered after your third or fourth frivolous suit.

Poor people are fucked over all the time, but over here not because they’re sued by someone with money for no reason.

100% agree

For individuals it is a lot easier to go to another country to evade punishment. If a company does that they also can’t produce or sell there themselves and will have to find another company to act as an intermediary. Also, in this case it is about a dragging someone to court. It is hard to take a us software company to court, but it does happen. For example, a Dutch organisation took Meta to court for not allowing users to receive a feed with only the accounts they follow. They won that case. A celeb had his identity used by fraudsters who used Google Ads to trick people into buying certain crypto, he won the case. Yes companies get away with a lot, but they are ‘made to obey local laws’ from time to time.

I’m confused, even if the girl could waive her rights and that is legally a valid argument - she is not the one who’s excersizing her right to sue the company right? Does that right extend beyond death or would such a contract also extend to others who have not signed anything?

Also what the fuck, their stance is they can’t be sued, instead of they’re not guilty. I mean i’m not guilty and the parents can’t sue me, but if they wanted to my defense would surely be that i had nothing to do with it - not that they can’t sue me.

Relevant yes, but isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant? Crazy young age to end your life though. Can’t imagine what that’s like.

I think it depends on the country, since all rights themself are granted by the law of a country. That’s why there is a global definition of what human right, but not every human gets to exercise that right.

Not a lawyer, but if i hire someone to kill someone and put that in writing, I can’t sue that person for not doing his job because the contract has no legal value. Not sure on the details, but if i understand correctly a contract between two people cannot cover things that are outside the law. Meaning the law of contracts (like TOS) is inferior to the law of killing people. Seems like this is not true for America, but here i’ve heard of consumers winning lawsuits based on this principle.

We do need global punishment for corporations, but it would not be the only solution: corporation have to abide to local laws.

I mean it’s great for the people of California but if we would post every single pesticide and every herbacide getting banned for every place in the world this community is going to see a lot of content. Downvote me all you want, but this stuff has been banned (as the title says) in over 70 countries already. California is not even the first US state to ban it. Again this is great news for the wellbeing of the people in California but in the bigger picture this is not really news. Sorry to be a partypooper.

Not to say this isn’t uplifting news, but why wasn’t this posted the previous 70 times a country banned this 🤔

Afaik they got tired of winning, and want their users to use Lemmy instead.

Reuters should fire the guy who writes all the headlines.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/10/a-data-breach-at-shipping-giant-ceva-logistics-is-rippling-across-banks-retailers-steam-gamers-and-beyond/

The Netherlands as well since July 1st 🎉 https://business.gov.nl/amendments/telemarketing-no-more-unsolicited-calling-your-customers/

In Dutch we have a distinction between homeless and ‘roofless’, the latter being the general name for anyone sleeping outside or in a shelter. Whereas the first is used as a euphenism for anyone unhoused but has not been living on the street for multiple years. It’s a different distinction, but just as imperfect imo; since you don’t have 2 but 3 groups:

1. The not in the system but not on the streets (yet), sleeping in their car or moving from couch to couch,

2. The not sleeping on the street because the system is taking care of them (whether that system is functional or not, at least they’re not in the cold),

3. The ones surviving outdoors, voluntary or not.

In the Netherlands we decided foreigners who come to do cheap labour can get housed by their employer, when they lose their job they lose their house. We also decided the system should not let foreigners in. We also decided the system is only for addicts and people with mental health issues. Maybe in other places with other rules these three groups are less distinctly divided, but either way: all three groups deserve a name that is not demeaning nor dismissive. You’ll probably agree.

China speed proves real every time though

Yes, that is how it would go if rule of law had worked.

Some still do

There is two truths to this: not 100% of the company exchanged hands. The part that hasn’t changed hands only lost perceived value, no money has moved. The part that is exchanging hands is real people losing and winning real money.

So every investor who had faith in SpaceX as a central supporting column of the USAs future in space

It’s not like they’re investing to help SpaceX or the country or whoever, they’re just as self-interested as wall street and SpaceX executives. Sucks for them they got conned, but there were plenty of warning signs it was overvalued.