Yep. Brackets by me:

[Him and his wife] have been thinking a lot about [his] vote for Trump.

“I knew they were cracking down,” he said. “I guess I didn’t know how it was going down.”

He imagined the administration would target people who snuck over the border and weren’t vetted

But his wife, “they know who she is and where she came from,” he said. “They need to get the vetting done and not keep these people locked up. It doesn’t make any sense.”

The dumbfuck doesn’t show any contrition at all, he just says oops I didn’t know. When this topic came up in the interview, he didn’t admit any regret or that he put himself (and his wife) in this position - he just says that the government is wrong to do this to him/his wife, and that they should go after other illegals instead. What a piece of shit.

Other countries should trade for our national parks - like a month’s worth of eggs for Yellowstone - and then they can protect them from trump selling parks off to oligarchs and corporations. It would be a win/win situation: Americans (and the entire world) retain access to the parks, and foreign nations can collect the money those parks bring.

On the contrary, I bet they feel eggcellent

What has Newsome done? All I know about the guy is that trump hates him

Zero DMs for me and now I’m sad

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).

I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.

I’m not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I’m gonna trust any group that says “I’m not fucking you over” it’s gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over