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
Yeah it's funny, I'm actually searching for any mention of it on this platform and coming up pretty empty.
It just goes to show what an echo chamber this platform is.
Again, because encryption is so legitimately difficult to get right with so many pitfalls and so much room for honest error, I don't think anybody should start with management when deciding whether to trust an implementation.
That is so far removed from actually guaranteeing a secure system that it's really pretty beside the point.
It does make for good drama, but it has little to do with the end result.
Well every single person operating an instance, paying to keep it online, is doing so because they drive some value from doing so, some profit from doing so.
Nobody is going to harm themselves intentionally by spending resources on running an instance if they don't think it's for the best.
You've never heard of a volunteer worker being exploited or ordered around? Hell, I've heard a lot of volunteers complaining about exactly that sort of thing throughout my life.
It just really comes across like you need to broaden your experience of it, both on this platform and in the broader world.
Yes.
If you have a version that you are comfortable with, and you are uncomfortable with what might be in future versions, don't install the future versions.
You put your finger on it.
I think this promotes a misunderstanding of how the Supreme Court works in the US system of government.
No, the Supreme Court wouldn't legalize weapons. The question before the court is whether some restrictions are legal, so the courts ruling would be about the enforceability of a regulation, not the legality of the weapon.
If a state is violating the law by bringing charges against individuals, that's what the Supreme Court would call out.
Oh I see that here everyday, with instance owners enforcing their own rules and profiting off of running their instances.
I think you have a very narrow view of what's going on on this platform. That other stuff is definitely here.
So one funny thing about this question is that #cryptography is legitimately difficult to do correctly, with plenty of room for mistakes.
So part of the story is that even if you think #musk
is a terribly dishonest person, while some other developer is a completely honest one, the trickiness of implementation means that you still can't trust the honest one. The intention becomes something of a side note because it's just that easy to screw it up.
So I don't care who implements it. I really don't go for that sort of drama. The product needs to sink or swim on its own, to be shown to be solid regardless of any kind of ad hominem attack on its author.
I don't care who writes it; I'm going to gauge my trust on what independent experts in the field say once they have analyzed it.
But again, the whole point of #E2E encryption is not having to trust the developer.
Specifically, what doesn't exist here?
Well again, why?
Just saying we film other things is not a very compelling reason to do it.
Not necessarily. It depends on how the software is distributed and such.
So what this comes down to is a simple disagreement about the type of people you want on this platform.
You want this platform to be one way, other people want it to be a different way, and that's just an honest disagreement.
They don't hide behind mystery. They put the opinions out on their website and hand copies to the press as soon as they are handed down.
They're not hiding what they look like. What they look like just doesn't matter, so why accept the downsides of cameras, turning the argument into a performance, turning it into the circus that is a congressional hearing, when it just doesn't matter one bit what it looks like?
They aren't legislators; they operate completely different in the US system of government.
It just makes no sense to call for cameras in the Supreme Court. That urge seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the Court--and the federal government in general--functions.
No I'm not taking the word of a tweet for it, but I would expect some independent analysis to look at how they E2E feature seems to operate, just like I would for any other company or developer.
Meh, It seems to make plenty of sense: so many people use that site because they get value out of it
Well the whole point of end-to-end encryption is that we don't have to answer that question.
Well more importantly, and this doesn't get nearly enough coverage, #Title42 is a section of law with specific requirements for how it can and cannot be applied.
It's not merely up to the discretion of an administration. The president doesn't get to just use it whenever he feels like it, and presidents don't get to go back and forth on the law as they come in to office.
Title 42 is no longer legally available to the president, so it's really been something to hear Republicans demanding that it be kept around, when that goes against the law itself.
Why? It's the opinion that matters, not the hairstyle worn during the hearing.
The logic laid out to all of us in the opinion they release is the only thing that matters in the work of the Supreme Court. That's what lower courts would be bound to as they apply the logic to the other cases before them.
It doesn't matter one bit what the justices look like as they are hearing the presentations from council.
@madelainetaylor@mastodon.scot
Yep, and I just keep hearing from journalists their expressions of a perspective that is just really disconnected: they know that they have lost so much respect, but they have absolutely no idea why, and so they can't address the concerns that the general public has.
Frankly I think that has something to do with the type of person that would become a journalist in the first place, a certain homogeneity among the people in the profession.
But that's a much larger topic :-)
Yeah, it does come across to me as a case where it got lost in a technicality.
The legislature may have threaded a needle to just barely put it outside the boundaries of court action.
Well, that's democracy.
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:
