this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
1789 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
7382 readers
623 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This seems like it was probably written by AI. Has anyone actually fact checked this?
Smells like AI, but that doesn’t mean it’s just slop. You can look up each of the cited laws—they’re not long or particularly difficult reads. They are all arguably accurate citations.
Iffy "explicitly authorized" is a loaded phrase for this use case. He controls enough DoD leadership to make it happen legally without much resistance.
Legit.
It depends on the framing. If rocks were being thrown at ICE, the argument likely wouldn’t hold up.
Likely legit.
Legit, but remember that this simply means the military can be held accountable for their actions. If they assault or kill someone, they can face legal consequences. It's just precedence. Essentially, this is the point in law where you can't say you were just following orders.
Legit.
However, within this framework, prosecution depends on willingness—someone has to actively push for it, and the government has to be stable enough to recognize these violations as valid. For the most part, these are pardonable offenses.
TL;DR: Until there’s a regime change, none of this will carry much weight.
It was. I keep seeing this at work. ChatGPT especially loves to add the unnecessary icons.
But is the information wrong?
At my work I have some serious privacy and security questions about what people are pasting into chatgpt.
No, the information is correct from what I can determine. But it would have taken me a lot longer to find the relevant sections of law and precedent and sift through them on my own.
They're all mercifully short reads (at least enough to get the idea if they apply) and famous enough to be easy to find. I just went through them in a higher-level post. They're all right-ish. 3 are solid, the other 3 are technically accurate, but there's enough wiggle room to get out of it.
I edited my post with some relevant citations and links
I added the relevant citations for you
That user posted that same comment on multiple posts as well
Definitely needs fact checking, but yeah I do the same thing when I have some good points to be made on a popular topic that is being discussed in various threads. Not everyone needs a super special unique response when copy-paste is a thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't think I'm a bot or AI....🤖