SkiSkinnySkis
@skiskinnyskis.bsky.social
150 followers 240 following 2.4K posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Cool then you can look yourself up on clearsky.
An "enemies" list. Block="enemies" list is simple and lazy compared to activity monitoring the site.
Oh they do for sure, but they're lazy. And block=enemies list is much easier than actively monitoring the site.
Likely 2 things: 1) A wider attempt to undermine Bluesky. Don't be surprised if we see something like WH demands its accounts be unblockable for "national security" reasons. 2) To create an "enemies" list. As block=enemies list is much easier than actively monitoring the site.
And create an "enemies" list of those who block us!
Whelp easy way for them to create an "enemies" list.
Also a much easier way to create an "enemies" list than actively monitoring Bluesky. As now "enemies" list = blocked Administration accounts.
My guess is it's more about a wider plan to undermine Bluesky. Won't be surprised if we soon see reports of the White House demanding that government accounts be unblockable for "national security" reasons.
God, what a shitty and meaningless question.
The conversation from Ellison to Weiss is going to be: "Hey I heard you hired your sister for a top role. That's really cool! Did you know my daddy bought me this entire company? Awesome, right?"
Luckily her boss is a Nepo baby.
So you'd almost assuredly need to set a yearly revenue minimum (verified via IRS taxes), otherwise people could just set up a "paper" LLC with no revenue, no expenses, and no operations using a PO Box in a disadvantaged area to qualify.]
As while limiting it to Pell grant recipients already act as substitutes for income/wealth, you'd need to verify the business is legitimate and operational for 3 years...
[The policy is so garbage that you would also have to double means test income/revenue....
Would absolutely require a whole new division at the department of Ed just to process, evaluate, and approve applications. [Plus appeals, fraud control and audits, etc.]
It's as a bureaucratic nightmare. What is starting a business? Does a non-profit count? What about a rental property that is an LLC? A 5% passive owner? Part-time or seasonal operation over 3 years? A sole proprietor/ independent contractor that doesn't live in a disadvantaged area but works in one?
Basically, this would require a whole new division at the Department of Education just to process, evaluate, and approve applications.
Or what about an Uber driver /independent contractor who doesn't live in a disadvantaged area but they do some or most of their work in such areas (which are often defined by zip code)?

God junk like this is horrible policy, but it's even worse as a campaign message /promise.
Then what is "starting a business"? Does one have to be a full owner, do partnerships count, what about a small 5% owner, schedule C sole proprietorship without any registration? How about an Uber driver/independent contract who operates sporadically over 3 years? What about a non-profit?
This policy would have been a buercratic nightmare. No way it could it be automatic, so only a few who knew to apply would ever get it.
Also, from a policy perspective heavily means tested junk like Harris proposed is inefficient and plays favorites (which often just pisses off those not in the narrow group favored).
The issue is twofold. 1) As a campaign message, it's too complicated and niche. 2) As a policy, it's too narrow and means tested.

Better campaign message and policy would be something like 1) "I will double pell grants for all qualified college students."
Personal injury lawyers are gonna love that. Seems like an easy way to expose your company to massive liability.