volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
You say government funded is ambiguous, and I say, YES, EXACTLY!
The most obvious interpretation is that the funding is significant? No, the label is ambiguous, so it would be foolish for a person to interpret it that way.
It's not inaccurate, it is in fact accurate. You're complaining that some people may jump to inaccurate misinterpretations of an accurate label, but that doesn't make the label itself inaccurate.
Anyway, honest question, how would you phrase a label to more clearly represent the amount of government funding that the org gets? I haven't been able to come up with one.
No it's completely accurate. That they receive a small amount of government funding just confirms that they receive government funding.
So yeah, like you said, state affiliated was misleading and they improved the label, and now they are complaining about the improved label.
They are not taking the high road in this case.
You do not understand correctly.
volkris
boosted
I’ve found the BlueSky team to be very purposeful. It’s not run or owned by Jack, it’s not Jack’s thing, although he is on the board (it’s a Public Benefit Corporation in the US).
Jay Graber is the CEO & founder who fought for it to be independent of Twitter & calling it Jack’s thing erases her. It’s not great.
It’s another open protocol that makes different trade offs than ActivityPub.
I wrote more about the protocol and open source code earlier https://cosocial.ca/@boris/110149727703071833
Given the speed at which Twitter was hemorrhaging money, I don't think that was ever an option.
@shansterable@c.im @GJGreenlea
Well what exactly would the charges be?
It's like the meme, that was always an option.
The two guys thought so little of their jobs as representatives that they broke chamber rules and left their constituents without representation in the legislature.
If their constituents were fine with that, then sure, they were always able to send the same knuckleheads back.
Seems like a bad idea to me, but that's democracy, and they get the government they want.
US Politics Tennessee
Well it's democracy.
f his constituents are happy to reappoint a representative who gives up representing them, well that sounds like a bad idea to me, but that's their choice.
Seems to me they would be better served by a representative who is more engaged.
USA Politics
It's really noteworthy how this blurb is resting on ad hominem attacks rather than looking at the content of the argument.
Where did Thomas actively work to overturn a presidential election?
Every such claim I've seen has been debunked.
@davemark Ha! #Bitcoin never had anonymity!
I guess really this headline is showing that people are still misrepresenting Bitcoin as being anonymous. It's not, it never has been, and people have been trying hard over the years to make sure users know that.
Well I guess there's more work to be done here.
Bitcoin puts all transactions on a public ledger that anybody is free to read. That is core to the whole idea. Anybody looking for anonymity, Bitcoin is not the place to go.
Well it's the same old thing: NPR claims its government funding is minuscule while simultaneously frantically trying to maintain its government funding.
@shiruken@octodon.social
What's inaccurate about the branding? Seems pretty true.
@morecowbell@mastodon.social
I don't know? You're the one who made the statement, so if you would like people to know what the hell you're talking about, I guess it's really up to you to express yourself?
Or not. Whatever. If you are just happy with spouting into the void without people understanding what in the world you're talking about, that is entirely acceptable on social media.
Except they didn't mislabel the accounts.
They labeled the accounts more accurately, and following established labeling practices elsewhere.
NPR seems to be just jumping on a bandwagon regardless of fact, which is part of the whole trend of journalistic institutions losing credibility in the eyes of the general public these days.
@morecowbell@mastodon.social
I know a bit about Texas, but I'm also kind of confused by why you keep quizzing me instead of simply saying what your statement was about.
Like this is not about me. I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about, so why are you asking me so many questions?
@J12t@social.coop Well there are two different use cases here.
People wanting to have different hats is one thing. It absolutely makes sense to have a professional versus a fun persona. Obviously that person doesn't want to link the two.
But the issue of having different accounts on different platforms because they do different things, that is a huge drawback to the #Fediverse system as it is now. That's the case of the same hat, the same persona, on different platforms simply because different platforms can't do the same work.
I really hope the system that some point figures out how to have the same account/persona on different interfaces. I think I remember that Bluesky might support that out of the box.
Well I would encourage you to at least look around at Fediverse options beyond Mastodon since other interfaces with more long form or multimedia friendly capabilities would be more in keeping with the NPR mission.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
