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
No what makes it accurate is that it is truthful!
I notice that you did not reply with a specific benefit.
I mean there are so many things wrong with your comment, but I want to keep focus on that one particular request.
You have both complaints factually backwards.
It's funny because even these news organizations are admitting that they are state-funded--and seriously who even denies that?--as they maintain that the state funding they receive is small.
It's one thing to say we should be clear that the funding is a small part of the budget. It's another to deny that they funding they received doesn't happen.
That story has been debunked already as the court pointed out that he is neither getting millions in gifts nor is the party someone who has an active interest in court decisions, which is exactly why this has already been considered and rejected as a concern.
And the Supreme Court does have their own codes, which are the ones that Thomas had third parties consult when they cleared him of these issues.
There's just so much factually wrong with this conspiracy theory, above and beyond even the sensationalized story ProPublica is trying to sell once again.
He said he'd report it now that the guidelines on reporting have been changed.
Seriously, there's no need to reach for the dramatic story. They only serve to obscure what's actually going on.
It's pretty funny that two big dramatic things in #USPolitics right now is Thomas taking vacations with friends (how dare he not disclose that?!) and NPR accepting money from the US government (how dare #Twitter disclose that?!).
Well, funny might not be the right word.
It's sad. But this is Fediverse.
Well personally I do want to know when government is funding a news organization at all, no matter how little the government might be contributing to the bottom line.
It's always a conflict of interests, even if one might say it's only a small amount of money.
And hell, if it is so little money, I'd say #NPR and #PBS should simply stop taking it. If the funding is so insignificant, why open themselves up to that conflict of interest at all?
So yeah, this label is accurate, and if you have a more communicative label I'm interested since I haven't really been able to think of one.
A CARPORT?! Yeah, you've got him now!
Seriously, it's amazing how far Propublica is trying to stretch this story.
What law did he break?
The Court says he consulted legal council who cleared his dealings with Crow as legal.
And Propublica has a long history of sensationalizing stories based on misleading and cherrypicked claims.
Yes, but where is the specific benefit that Crow traded for the scheme you're imagining?
All of these claims come across as nutty conspiracy theory without that part filled in.
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.
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:
