TWeaK

No love for Taylor Swift lol

Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.

I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.

I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.

Because of enshittification lol

It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

The EU at its top level creates “Directives”

This is exactly what I said.

The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

To summarise:

• What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
• My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.

And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.

Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.

They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.

Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.

To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.

I hate this phrase because it assumes that copyright infringement was at one point the same as stealing - it never was.

Stealing is a crime, where you take with the intent to deprive. Copyright infringement is a civil offense where the original owner loses nothing.

If this is what I think it is, the hard drives are used data centre drives that are sold as “renewed”. They wipe the drives then use manufacturer’s tools to reset the clocks, effectively the same as winding back the mileage clock in a car. They are sold cheaper than new drives, but not really at a price that reflects their age and true used status.

I bought 4x 14TB drives of this type, pretty sure they were listed as new, although some show as used. 1 drive was DOA and I’m still waiting on the refund.

You can see tons of them on diskprices.com

Edit: oh wait, this is a different scam. This is like a combination of the classic size scam with the data centre scam. Fun!

It’s probably related to Amazon’s practice of binning all products with the same barcode together. So when someone sells something through Amazon their products get bundled with everyone else’s, and when someone buys they get one from the bundle. A counterfeiter basically poisons the stock, and you end up with counterfeiters selling legit products and legit sellers selling the counterfeit ones.

OP asked what their rights were, so that was the focus of my reply. You’re right though, and I’ve said as much in my main comment, it’s better to avoid the situation entirely than to stick a finger up and try to assert your rights.

Nope, it defaults to an informal tenancy if they’ve been living there long enough (usually something like 3 months), and this includes the time when they were under 18. So if a child grows up in the home, they automatically become a tenant at 18. This is also regardless of whether they actually pay rent.

You don’t need a written contract for there to be a contract in place.

If OP’s mom does not formally evict OP then OP would be able to sue for an unlawful eviction. In such a circumstance, OP would want to call the police to gain entry - if not to assert their tenancy rights and stay in the property then at least to collect their belongings.

Based on the use of “mom” and “OWI”, almost certainly.

TL;DR You are almost certainly a tenant and have the rights of a tenant, but common sense says you should respect your mom’s wishes and not give out her address online.

Because I’m annoyed that people assumed I was wrong and that you must be in some other jurisdiction, I’ve dug in deeper and I’m going to give 4 specific examples for jurisdictions you might live in based on your use of “OWI”.

Wisconsin - an adult child is a tenant, and must be formally evicted. Source

Michigan - an adult child is a tenant, and must be formally evicted. Source

Iowa - an adult child is a tenant, and must be formally evicted. Source

Indiana - an adult child is a tenant, and must be formally evicted. Source

These are the 4 states that commonly use OWI instead of DUI (technically Wisconsin uses something slightly different but I think they commonly say OWI - this source lists these 4 states, while this source has a full list of the specific legal terms for every state).

Your mom could evict you for breaking her house rules, but she can’t just immediately throw you on the streets. She has to serve proper written notice and go through the courts to get you evicted.

In practice, it might be hard to enforce these rights, but they are your rights. If your mom kicks you out or changes the locks the police should be called to mediate your entry. At the very least you should be able to collect some belongings eg clothes, toiletries, legal documents (birth cert and SSN card). Furthermore, if you are unable to properly assert your rights as a tenant, you likely still have a strong civil claim - you would be able to sue your mom for an unlawful eviction and claim back what you spend on last minute accommodation.

However, it’s generally better not to get kicked out in the first place - in particular you need up front money to pay for last minute accommodation and the cost of filing a lawsuit. Such a lawsuit may be small claims, where the filing fees are relatively low and you don’t need a lawyer, but the specifics of this vary by state much more than adult child tenancies (for example, Iowa is up to $5,000 for small claims, but Wisconsin can be up to $10,000 for money and Wisconsin has no limits on rent claims).

Disclaimer: IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer, if you want proper information you should try to get a free consultation with a lawyer local to you that deals with tenancies.

Setting aside all the legal stuff, you should consider what your behaviour looks like to your mom. If you want to demonstrate that you’re a responsible adult that should be trusted, you probably shouldn’t be trying to “take your chances” and circumvent your mom’s rules. She doesn’t want random people knowing her address, so don’t give out her address to random people you meet online. You would be better off meeting them in a public place with other people around, but at the very least you could meet on a nearby street rather than letting them come all the way to your mom’s.

Of course, but OP hasn’t said where they’re from, and the only thing we have to go on is that they talk about their “mom”. This generally points to someone being from the US (however it could be someone that merely learned English from a US-style teacher).

At the very least, we can reasonably conclude they’re not in Canada, the UK or Australia.

Sure, but absent any specifics from OP I’ve taken the fact that they said “mom” to point to them being in the US.

Obviously, the exact law depends on the jurisdiction, but saying “mom” at the very least rules out several places where this isn’t the case. OP also mentioned an “OWI”, which is an American legal term.

Sure, but I think it’s reasonable to assume OP is in the US, given that they used mom and not mum. At the very least, it’s unlikely they’re in the UK (or Australia or Canada).

Edit: OP also mentioned their mom had an “OWI”, which is an American term.

This is wrong. Because OP is now an adult they are legally a tenant and thus OP’s mom would have to formally evict OP.