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
Maybe you address them in the paper, but it sounds like you might run into issues of action vs inaction and minimal imposition needed to support a government interest.
As I recall a lot of the religious liberty protection comes down to, Does government *really* need to impose ___ to reach its goal, or is there a less intrusive option?
Unfortunately when it comes to abortion, if we accept that restricting it promotes a legit goal (or else this is all moot), then there isn't much room for more or less intrusion.
(I'm not looking to start a debate, but if you feel like a summary response to this, I'd be happy to read it!)
In this case it's not that the dems should have *blocked* reps, but that they shouldn't have actively created this situation and handed it to the GOP.
Democrats chose to pass appropriations bills without funding sources, putting us in this situation. That was their decision, their active effort.
Basically, they created a mess that we're now all dealing with. They shouldn't have created that mess.
George Santos, International man of mystery
"H.Res.114 - In the matter of George Santos."
I suppose people don't tend to receive these historic sounding shout-outs in Congress for *good* reasons :)
So I'd say the signature should be context dependent.
For example, if a reporter is quoting an expert or public figure verbatim, I'd like to see their signature attached to see that they agree that they were properly quoted.
Or if the piece is a technical explainer, the reporter might get a few subject matter experts to attach signatures, publicly attesting that they reviewed the material and it's solid.
Just a run-of-the-mill report or newsbrief though? Sure, the reporter's own signature might be fine; track down others might be overkill. Well, we might want editors' signatures too, just for fun.
But the main thing that comes to my mind with this is the quotation signature. It doesn't happen every day, but far too often over the years I've seen reporters literally leave out a word like "not" and end up reversing the meaning of the quote.
The signing process would have had the speaker catch the misquotation, hopefully.
I'm happy to criticize Trump and, I was certainly opposed to those spending bills. But there's a major difference between then and now:
Funding was provided for those programs. The issue of this moment is that funding for these programs doesn't exist.
I believe the worst thing is Congress having promised to spend money that doesn't exist. That breaks the government all around.
Sort out infrastructure spending however, but do it reasonably, providing a funding source for the programs.
Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, when I first looked at the design of ActivityPub I worried that it sounded resource intensive to scale, and then when the Twitter exodus happened I heard a ton of people on here complaining about that exact concern.
So it's something I keep an eye on, though I haven't run it myself to have first-hand experience.
The concern I've heard expressed is that if a reporter is asking, say, a politician to sign a report, to certify it as authentic, then the reporter will feel pressure to play nice with the politician to "earn" that signature.
I understand the concern, but I think the pros outweigh the navigation of that task.
It can even stand as a form of review that's both annoying and fruitful at the end of the day, if it leads to the hassles of revisions that end in a better report.
@gimulnautti
@mnutty
In my experience, when I hear someone expressing criticism or even frustration with journalists it's due to the reporter's product standing or failing on its own, not due to bashing from any third party groups.
I know a lot of people who've become especially disenchanted with the way #journalism is conducted these days after hearing reporters confidently saying things that go against the listener's own professional expertise.
That's not to say there aren't people out there who *are* swayed by political bashing, just that I tend to converse with professionals who have this other, pretty eye-opening experience.
Once that skepticism sets in, they start to notice other flaws, and now we really don't know any particular source for great journalism.
@madelainetaylor@mastodon.scot
The labor force participation rate remains well below its 2020 level.
You're still excluding people from the count which spends the statistics.
I think that illustrates my point.
100 bills loosening regulations on firearms does highlight that there are so many regulations on them to loosen.
If guns were so unregulated, then they wouldn't have anything to pass bills against. That they are passing legislation against the regulations goes to show that the regulations are considered constitutionally allowable.
Otherwise instead of passing legislation they would just challenge the regulations against guns as unconstitutional and leave it at that.
So right. There are a lot of regulations against firearms in the US. The 2nd Amendment is not seen as all that powerful, and we can see evidence of that in what you brought up, the Texas legislature's decision that they need to augment the 2nd Amendment with further legislation.
I think you are overestimating the places where people can carry guns.
Governments have had quite a lot of ability to rope off places as sensitive areas where guns are not allowed, and certainly private property owners are able to set rules against carrying on their premises.
Gun free zones are definitely a thing, meanwhile even disruptive protests are often tolerated even against clear rules about it.
Those statistics are out of context until you correct for the numbers of people who left the workforce and aren't included in the headline unemployment number.
Not to mention, deplatforming just plays into Trump's hands, offering credence to his claims of being so attacked, proving him in the eyes of voters who are considering him.
The guy runs on a message of being under attack. We shouldn't be helping him prove that claim.
@barney@mas.to
Sounds like it's the sort of thing where half the country is aware of things the other half of the country isn't, just part of the big divide we have these days based on where people get their news.
Well it is a bit different because these efforts threaten judicial independence, which is a concern that didn't come up when it concerned Trump.
It's one thing to look at whether the executive branch is properly applying the laws passed by Congress, but it's another for Congress to delve into the personal lives of the justices that are meant to serve as independent arbiters even of congressional action.
@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.
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:
