Signal should change this, but it’s typical of the traditional desktop OS security model in which applications running under the user’s account are considered trustworthy. Security-oriented software like Signal should take a more hardened approach, but this is not some glaring security hole.

Accepting a bribe is, however not an official act. It’s the acceptance of the bribe that’s illegal, not the official act itself.

Reading Justice Barrett’s partial concurrence, which is what the footnote responds to and also included in the linked ruling addresses your concern. Justice Barrett is unambiguously talking about prosecuting the president for accepting a bribe.

The federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201©. The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so.

One of the things I like about Slashdot’s system is that it requires a reason for a downvote. Of course that doesn’t prevent people from downvoting disingenuously, but it nudges users away from downvoting just because they disagree.

I think for most social systems, the UI I’d use is a report or flag button that pops up a second step with a list of reasons, and like Slashdot, show the most selected reason next to low-ranked posts.

The law doesn’t say they can’t make it difficult to service, just that they can’t deny your warranty because you did.

Have you read the ruling?

The risk of something like that happening is not closely connected to anything in the ruling we’re discussing here. If a president manages to hold on to power after losing an election or reaching a term limit, the situation has devolved far beyond ordinary criminal prosecution; the constitution is no longer being enforced at that point.

There is no specific rule or law against giving a pardon in exchange for payment

Yes there is: 18 USC § 201 (b) (2).

Granting the pardon isn’t the part that’s illegal; soliciting or receiving the payment in exchange is. The ruling doesn’t change that, but could make the prosecution of that act more difficult in certain edge cases.

This is presumably in reference to a past president, who would not have those powers. The legal issues surrounding prosecuting a sitting president have not been explored, and this ruling does not address them directly as they were not relevant to the case.

A cursory reading of the decision (PDF), and most reporting on it do suggest that it allows the president to sell pardons. Clarity that it does not can be found in a footnote, which reads in part:

JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” … But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act… What the prosecutor may not do,however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.

Though it is, in my view unreasonably deferential to the office of the president, the ruling makes it very clear Trump does not have immunity for things like falsifying the records of his private business and refusing to turn over classified documents when he wasn’t president.

Signal has offered custom stickers for years, but it’s up to the user to generate them.

I’m mostly against downvoting without explanation, so here it is: expressing this sentiment in this community without a really solid explanation of why you think it would actually help seems like trolling.

The relevant section of the DMA imposes restrictions on designated gatekeepers. It does not apply to websites that are not designated as gatekeepers.

That behavior might be questionable under the GDPR though.

It seems like at least some people view apps that come preinstalled on their phone differently from other apps, but I’m not sure why.

A quick web search for third-party coverage information tells me that Wanaque has good coverage from Verizon and poor coverage from T-Mobile. It’s easy to guess why T-Mobile might be motivated to change that situation.

Federated systems are one option for this. On one of my sites, the only way people can leave comments is with ActivityPub. They must have a (probably pseudonymous) account on a server to use that, and I hope that most servers have moderation I find acceptable. I can block those that do not.

More sophisticated options for sharing reputation between servers would help here. If, for example five servers I trust block another server as a source of harassment, I’d like to block it as well, automatically.

most people see messaging apps like Signal, WhatsApp and other third party apps for personal use only.

In Europe, businesses, especially small businesses often use WhatsApp, to the point of putting its logo next to their phone number on signs. I wonder what creates the perception where you are that messaging apps are for personal use, not business.

Signal, being owned by a nonprofit has a bit more resistance to that than most.

That’s the main reason I recommend it over alternatives with similar technical capabilities, such as WhatsApp.

Much as I’d like to blame Trump for everything bad that happened during his term, the pandemic and surrounding craziness caused a spike in crime, and Trump did not cause the pandemic.

Biden did not end the pandemic or its social impacts. I’d argue the pandemic isn’t really over, but most of its social impacts are.