Disappointing that the linked article doesn’t include a photo of the tattoo. When a report lacks important relevant information, the reader has a choice to take it for its word or seek out supporting facts. So, when I searched for Planter Nazi Tattoo, there are plenty of articles taking the opposing tone - in that he knew what the tattoo was.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2025/10/21/2349761/-Not-one-diary-or-mention-about-Graham-Platner-s-Nazi-tattoo-Really This sounds more like he has been aware of what the tattoo represented and he hasn’t really cared about it until now. Which I personally find much more believable. Good on him for getting it covered up but, ehhh. Maybe don’t believe every word a politician exhales.

I don’t know this person or anything about Maine. I don’t really care either. But journalism needs to be held accountable. I expect more from PBS / AP.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Why go through all that trouble when they’ve already accomplished the end goal you’ve outlined?

Other than general assumptions and track-record and being a business that sells user data, is there any actual evidence or clear and present ways that Meta could do harm to the Fediverse / its users?

All I’ve read is that it seems suspicious and we shouldn’t trust them. I totally agree with that but I’d like someone to give some examples of what they could do as a member of the network. I’ve read how they could post advertising – how would that work?

I ask because, like the previous comment, the idea of following people from other, more popular, federated platforms from the comfort and security of “open source” (?) platforms is appealing. At the same time, if this is leaving me and my platform vulnerable to something specific, I’d like to either proceed with caution or not proceed at all.

The biggest loss for me when leaving Twitter was losing access to so much happening in my community and local news and government organizations. They’re all still posting on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and not moving to the open social web. More and more are moving to Threads though so it would be nice to maintain / regain exposure.

So, he (supposedly) wants to “comment” on this trial in a manner that may not be “free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm”. For what possible reason would a defendant require to speak in such a manner?

Either he doesn’t know how to speak in a civil manner or he intends to sway public opinion (likely both). I think this says a lot about how his mind works. He deflects and blames and intimidates others to evoke superiority and fear… because he is weak and cowardly and a cheat.

How the heck one of the most genuinely pathetic and un-American Americans became president is something I will never understand.