RE: https://mstdn.social/@OregonLive/117452861692494320
While I appreciate the sentiment, this is fundamentally stupid; it's hyper-specific, livestreaming wasn't a thing two decades ago and will be replaced by something else before long, and it consumes legislative time that could be better spent on, I dunno, abolishing capital punishment completely, perhaps?
@cstross the early attempts were more like 30 years ago, although I'll grant it wasn't until about 15 years ago large scale streaming really became practical
@cstross Or on strengthening checks and balances so that comically evil presidents can't abuse their power willy nilly.
@cstross This!
Oct 17, 2026, 10:35 AM@cstross In sweden our prime minister has to ask our public service for air time. It is only allowed on exceptional occasions. This is their latest reason for it to be allowed: https://omoss.svt.se/arkiv/bloggarkiv/2020-03-22-darfor-sander-vi-statsministerns-tal-till-nationen.html I find the american way very strange.
Oct 17, 2026, 10:44 AM@cstross In the future we’ll livestream the final mental states of the executed directly into the brains of the potentially disobedient citizens (selected by a social credit score algorithm) to teach them to honor their leaders with appropriate enthusiasm
@cstross I completely agree with the abolish capital punishment recommendation, but also, did they forget the word broadcast existed? @OregonLive
@cstross Or striking to the root of the matter by abolishing that president.
A duty they have signally failed at.
@cstross With the midterms around the corner this is just some cheap performative politics. It's meant to score them(GOP) some easy points on something everyone agrees on, while pretending to be doing their jobs, which they aren't. A solution to a problem they created themselves.
@bit Time to go re-read Ken Macleod’s 2007 novel "The Execution Channel" methinks. (Strap line: "The War on Terror is Over: Terror Won".)
Oct 17, 2026, 1:57 PM@cstross I'd be surprised if the bill itself was that specific; you'd think they want it to cover live TV and shit too...but unfortunately the link from Vindman's website to view the bill text links to some different bill ("Honesty in Government Act") and I can't find any other references to this new thing yet. So there seems to be no info about this legislation other than a goddamn press release so far...knowing the way these things usually go it's also quite possible that it actually *requires* executions to be live streamed...
@cstross ...or just ban future presidents? Full stop.
Consider: the two biggest problems in the world today are named Trump and Putin, and they seem to be besties. (Xi Jinping, Modi and whoever Brazil installs aren't squeaky clean, but haven't been problems on the same scale (yet).)
No individual should have the authority these bros do. No one from any party. Ever.
No individual should even be allowed to speak, let alone act, for millions. Ever.
Humanity has created something in its governments that biology doesn't allow to exist in ecosystems: localizing the potential for catastrophe in one individual.
There's your Great Filter.
@kramaker Presidencies (and similar unitary individual executives) are just a reified non-hereditary replacement for the monarchs of yore. They can, in principal, be replaced more easily when they crap out. But in practice, if it deteriorates into oligarchy we're fucked the same way. And they always try to accumulate more centralized power.
The EU at least has a rotating chair held by whichever nation has the baton and it's not really about exercising king-like individual power.
@cstross Agreed. And, of course, my "ban" suggestion was flippant, but something must change. The very existence of a single position of authority is an attraction to precisely those people least qualified to govern anything. Congress should pass constitutional amendments to strip the US presidency of most of its authority "with extreme prejuduce" no matter which party takes it next.
(And from the comment above, looks like Sweden has _another_ thing correct.)