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
Right, but the determination of harmful is set by policy under the authority of the president, so presidents are pretty much by definition immune from the requirements of the act.
It basically says people can't do things counter to the president's wishes. The president himself will never be in a position of doing something counter to his own wishes.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
The story has its facts wrong, though. In particular, Citizens United *supported* campaign limits and regulation, ruling against the challengers that wanted those regulations declared unconstitutional.
But overall the piece talks as if the Supreme Court is a legislature, crafting policies and shaping laws concerning campaigning. That's simply not the role of the Court in the US system of government.
The Court merely points out that we have constitutionally protected rights to engage in the democratic process, even if politicians wish to control us, and it "guts" those efforts to silence political speech.
ActivityPub spam, onboarding
This kind of thing is why I really wish ActivityPub had focused on users, not instances, and included Web of Trust sort of functionality in its core.
Always remember the answer to your question: voters elected representatives that thought it was a very good idea.
Democracy stinks sometimes. But dealing with it means addressing these issues in the general public to nudge people into electing better representatives.
This whole mess is about the people we elected to Congress. The last ones left a mess and the new ones are doing a questionable job cleaning it up.
We should probably stop electing such people.
I imagine the legislation isn't particularly workable, and if enforced MT will send Google a bill to collect a fine, and Google will laugh the letter's way to the garbage can.
I would be nice, though, if this resulted in a court case that emphasized that no, states can't regulate the internet itself.
Here's the bill that you can read for yourself, without having to rely on outfits like NYTimes.
After all, there's a reason people have lost so much faith in press organizations: all too often their reporting just doesn't pass fact checking.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2811/text
What outrage?
The president is seeking more power, and Congress is simply saying, alright, well let's find some agreeable terms for granting it.
The debt ceiling is only an issue here because of a mess of legislation that Biden signed and then his threats to default.
Normally presidents work with Congress to negotiate for borrowing power, but this Dem POTUS seems to prefer the drama.
Same!
I wish you well, and I hope sometime that you might develop in your mathematical skills and understanding of federal budgeting practices!
The Treasury reports suggest that they are generally taking in around three times the revenue that would be needed to service the debt. Does that answer your question as to what plenty means? I don't know why you are so concerned with that, but yeah, it's not even close.
The president is constitutionally obligated to pay this debt service, as per the 14th Amendment. If he doesn't pay it, then he should be impeached as he is actively choosing to violate the Constitution in a really serious way.
How long? Ongoing. The Treasury brings in so much revenue through taxation, not even counting other revenue sources, that it will have enough to service its debts for the foreseeable future.
The rest of it is between the president and the Congress. But the Constitution is clear that these debts must be paid, and they can be paid, so unless Biden wants to be impeached, he must pay them.
I'm just pointing out that according to the Treasury, the Treasury has plenty of revenue with which to service its debts and avoid default.
Make of that what you will.
*I* would be calling politicians out for lying to the public, but whatever.
@MugsysRapSheet @potus
It's funny you say that since Biden has spent a week complaining about the details in the legislation that they passed, but you say there are no details?
But of course there are details. They are posted right there on the official government websites for us all to look up for ourselves if we want to.
But how does Fediverse prevent that?
Seems like their system would be just about as effective here as it vacuums up the content ActivityPub is broadcasting.
@socialmedianews
Well, I always want to highlight the downside of defederation that is removing power from users to make those decisions for themselves.
Whether that trade is bad or good is up to the people involved, but personally I really want to see more empowered users so I'd generally promote defederation as the last option, used only when an instance is posing a threat to the infrastructure.
I think you are looking too deeply into this because the major role of representatives is to represent, regardless of whether their constituents are floating toward one philosophy or another, OR whether the representative job itself is a good idea or a bad idea, given whatever philosophical basis.
These functionaries seem to be doing their job, and it's a separate question weather that's a job that they should be doing.
Ha! Like I said I am trying to get us to laser focus on fixing some bad laws, without being distracted by judicial drama, so I'm kind of laughing that you went right back into judicial drama 🙂
The FDA did some questionable stuff here, and I really wish the president would have the FDA fix their paperwork so this wouldn't even be a threat.
And in the longer term we need to reevaluate whether these safety laws are really necessary because in this case it seems that they were counterproductive.
We have these two other branches of government that are more set up to be accountable to us, so we need to focus on holding them accountable for their errors!
So far it looks like the judges are properly applying the law, but we need to fix the laws!
Well until the term expires or you cross Congress badly enough that they were movie from office.
I mean yes. Head of the executive branch does come with authority over the executive branch.
On the other hand, that does increase load on that site, being almost a form of DoS attack against it.
Well it's not that the court is prepared to limit access. It's that our lawmakers passed a bunch of laws that limited access.
We really need to emphasize that this is all because of laws passed by Congress that probably need to be reformed.
To focus on the court has some nice drama to it, but it lets lawmakers off the hook for the role they played in passing bad laws and the administration off the hook for its part in violating law as the FDA did its thing.
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:
