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
@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch
I just always want to emphasize that it's not only about instance maintainers, but that we can be empowering users to use this sort of tool to adjust their experience as they see fit.
Putting so much control on instance maintainers instead of handing it to the users just has such echoes of the complaints people have against Twitter and algorithms, so I don't want to forget the idea of empowering users instead of empowering administrators.
@Are0h @oliphant@oliphant.social
Or at least offer a counter proposal.
The Senate is strikingly silent, not putting forward legislation that can go to conference committee to seek resolution.
Heck, the Senate hasn't even offered a simple authorization to take on more debt.
No the thing I'm trying to emphasize is that it's not actually a public debt.
Politicians have been telling us for years that it is, but legally it's not.
There is no legal obligation for the federal government to pay Social Security, despite the rhetoric of politicians who have flat out lied to us about that for generations, and we really need to face that so we can fix it.
The US government could stop paying Social Security any day now if it wanted to, and we would have no legal claim to that money because it is not a debt. I mean practically it won't do that tomorrow, but since the plan for financing Social Security is not sustainable, under the current rules it will stop paying out in a few years.
So again, it's really important to emphasize, Social Security is not a public debt, it's just one of the many programs that the US government funds every year. But it is not indebted to us legally even though politicians keep misinforming us about that.
Well keep in mind too that there are some issues with running your own instance, for example receiving the amount of content that you want to receive if you frequently use hashtags to find content.
There are ways to deal with that kind of thing, but just keep in mind that it's not a simple matter of having the same experience on your own instance.
That's not quite right. SS isn't a public debt, but rather it's just another government program, not legally particularly different from paving a road or buying a fighter jet.
The critical thing here is that for generations so many politicians have outright lied for the American public about how SS works, emphasizing trust funds that are little more than artificial accounting, and making people feel like they paid into a savings account when really they paid into just more tax revenue, by law.
So Social Security is just an ongoing program of the United States, and if you ever receive a annual statement from the government talking about what you can expect from SS you'll see that most of the time it tries to make this clear, that the program can change at any moment, again just like Congress can change spending on fighter jets.
Social Security payouts are based on available funding and congressional willingness to keep the program going, nothing more.
At this moment the last Congress left the US government short of funding, so all of the programs are at risk for budgetary tightening.
Well you provided it yourself, I'd say, with the strawman you set up.
Again, where did you read huge profits? I certainly don't take that position that you seem to be arguing against for some reason.
I hope you stabbed that straw man to your own satisfaction, though.
The funny thing is, I don't know whether you are joking or not, but if you are joking, it's a pretty good joke 🙂
Actually, wait, there's some opportunity to make a joke about musk (as in cologne) here!
@lori yeah, and that's part of why I find @emc2's post to be a bit counterproductive.
This platform needs to recognize the realities of different types of users and different commitments that instance owners need to make to keep it going.
To say that profit is not welcome here, or doesn't exist here at all, is either to limit the value that the platform can provide to users or to just flat out deny reality. Neither one strikes me as particularly healthy.
It seems better to me to talk about how Yes, there is profit here, and yes, there is a reason that the platform might want new users, more users, because network effects tend to scale based on that.
If he doesn't want to have a certain type of user on the platform, that's a fair value to hold, but I guess it's just about being clear about that, so we can make an honest judgment of that position.
It just sounds like now you're at the point of saying other than these profits there are no profits, and other than this power structure there isn't a power structure.
It's not a brilliant stance to take.
Big profits? We're in the world did you read that?
And you don't think the enforcement of rules is a power structure?
I mean I can say it again if you need me to: you are saying a thing doesn't exist even though I see it every single day on this platform, so clearly you are not having a broad enough experience to see that it happens.
You've really never seen instance operators put up the rules of their instance? I figure most instances have those right on their front page, and if I was at a computer I would go take a screenshot or something for you, but it seems so ubiquitous that I can't believe you can't just go look for yourself.
You think the good people behind indieweb.social are operating your instance because they think it's a bad thing without value to them? I really doubt that. I'm certain the guy operating my instance finds it to be a profitable pursuit. I guess I could ask him, but it seems obvious to me.
So it strikes me that if you haven't experienced these things then you are living kind of a sheltered life. But really I suspect that you have, but you're ignoring it for rhetorical effect.
Either way, it's a bit silly.
Maybe the hearing was a complete lie. Maybe all of the evidence is fabricated. Maybe this is nothing but a witch hunt.
But I really do think that there should at least be discussion about this congressional hearing on this platform, and even after specifically searching for discussion, I see literally two people talking about it.
Echo chambers are so dangerous to our society. It's really unfortunate that this platform seems to be embracing echo chamber effects, often very deliberately.
NEW - House Oversight reveals the nine Biden family members that received wire transfers from foreign nationals via shell companies. 1. Hunter Bide...
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.
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:
