There is no constitutional right to pseudonymity, and there especially isn’t for federal workers who are asked to disclose social media profiles as part of their review for clearances. But here’s the Ed Martin acting like there’s one anyway.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Also not the point here but I’m not seeing the connection on how AI is supposed to help diversity? This just sounds like word salad and like every other AI salesperson drivel.
I thought so too at first, but the caption written by eBay seems to imply the reverse - that AI will be used to represent more diversity as opposed to diversity being considered in an AI model/usage. Could just be awkward phrasing
Where was Ed Martin when the Capitol was underweight and federal workers and elected officials under violent threat? Where...with the mob of insurrectionists.
This from a us attorney is so inappropriate & disgusting I don’t know where to begin. She’s not even a federal worker either. Just a wannabe Elon ass kissing influencer.
"doxxed" she's literally on TV with nothing more than a pair of sunglasses lol. if you don't take basic measures to protect your privacy you should not have expectation of any.
Well, there sorta is, but where it exists it’s a right of private individuals against compelled disclosure to the government, usually when engaged in protected speech or association, and it’s quite limited.
They just want to be able to criticize others without consequence.
It's why he's threatening other people's First Amendment rights while *inventing* protections for those he likes.
Won't be surprised if he starts "looking in to" when Musk says "that's a crime".
There is an indirect constitutional right to anonymity (protection against searches, protection against compelled speech), but citizens has a constitutional right to petition the government which is the primary factor here.
I meant in the sense that there's no protection for your real name being tied to a pseudonym. There's no protection against being ID'd by a journalist.
That would be something if she was a Federal employee. She doesn't work for DOGE (which isn't a Federal agency anyway). She is DOGE-adjacent. Meaning, she quit her job so she could Tweet things at Elon and get him to praise her.
Comments
She is participating in targeting herself
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-dei-target-access-disabilities/
https://bsky.app/profile/hannahgais.bsky.social/post/3lj3xzpctqn26
Elon’s crew evaluates you.
But we should evaluate, too.
So far Musk’s track record is bad.
Chaos, lies and failure. We mad!
Screw pseudonymity. Are these people even real
It's why he's threatening other people's First Amendment rights while *inventing* protections for those he likes.
Won't be surprised if he starts "looking in to" when Musk says "that's a crime".
The hypocrisy is a feature now.