I think the difference here is a strict "no-politics" rule (assuming it's enforced).
Reddit has no such rule, and thus the subs just devolve to suit the political views of the mods. If politics are forbidden in these extra communities then it will be much harder for that situation to repeat here.
I play an old MMO on a private server and the admins there are also very strictly "no-politics". Surprisingly I did not see anything political there throughout the entire election. It can be done.
Let me preface this that I am not a lawyer, but have been following this closely.
When they "joined" previously, it was as an "amicus curiae", which is someone who is not directly a party/plaintiff in the case, but will provide support, expertise and has interest in the issue at hand.
These 6 states that are "intervening" are alleging damages (similar to Texas) and thus will also be present in court should this be heard by SCOTUS. Trump has also filed a similar motion to intervene. This essentially means they have skin in the game now and would be heard (and could present evidence).
This of course, all depends on SCOTUS deciding to hear the case and I believe they also have to grant these motions to intervene.
No - the previous 18 are just "supporting" the case, or friends of the court. More of an informational/supportive means, but not actually an official part of the suit.
Intervening means they will actually be a plaintiff and would be present in court if SCOTUS hears the case.
If you apply the .win concept, build the audience first and then open it up to other content.
Doggos recently said they plan to expand beyond politics after the election and compete with other social media platforms.
Agreed fren.
The literal, official AG Twitter account for Arkansas says they will LEGALLY support the motion in all appropriate manners, yet some will still say this is disinfo.
There's a difference between being critical/rational and not jumping head first into the first tweet you see, but to just ignore all information is just as foolish.
This could be viewed in a negative light, but the Texas case is arguing essentially the same thing and they're challenging multiple states. Texas (as you all know by now) is going to SCOTUS already.
I think this case is redundant. Note they just dismissed the case, but did not present any comment on it's merits.
Does it matter if they were ordered to leave, told the could leave, or just left on their own accord?
Doesn't Georgia law require that all ballots be counted under supervision of poll watchers and thus continuing to count alone is a direct violation?
It was probably a test and they decided it needs more work.