volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@eyrea

Exactly.
So cars allowed us to improve standards, not because of some conspiracy wanting to make cars more convenient, but because it brought more value to society to implement the solutions that cars enabled so much more efficiently.

Cars were a solution, not the end game. We should not overlook that.

No matter how many books people might want to sell with silly arguments.
@BrentToderian

@PaulDitz

Good people? They're judges not priests.

I doesn't matter whether they're good or bad. Their job is to read the law to us, no matter how we might engage in ad hominem attacks on them personally.

@user8e8f87c

You simply say it will simply be the end of the fediverse, but based on what?

Why would it be the end; Why is fediverse so delicate that it wouldn't be able to withstand the mere participation of another group?

It seems to me that the history of the Internet has plenty of counterexamples.

@privacat @ploum @dangillmor

@PaulDitz

Well that's not true.

SCOTUS exists to settle disagreements over law.

If anything, I think you're looking at the wrong branch of government. What you describe is more in the authority of a legislature.

@eyrea

I'm well aware of that argument, but it always strikes me as overlooking realities ranging from social engagement through practicalities of modern living.

For example, it's not because of making cars more convenient that I don't have an iron foundary in the middle of my walkable neighborhood. There are good reasons that it's located well away, a nice car-accessible distance away.

Then you get to economies of scale where public transportation works best when everyone is conforming, going to the same place at around the same time. But this ignores the tremendous value to society of diversity, that personal transportation supports.

So yeah, the argument that surroundings were designed to make cars more convenient is common, but always comes across as myopic to me, failing to look a layer deeper and noticing that there were good reasons to do that.

It was an effect, not a cause.

@BrentToderian

@sspopovich

I think a good way to think of it is like email.

It's one thing for you to say that you do or you don't want to see any emails from some particular company, Walmart or the DMV, or whoever. You can mark it as spam, and you can work with your email client to sort out what is spam and what is important and all of that.

But it takes it to an entirely different level if whoever operates your email server decides for themselves that you don't get any of the messages from some particular domain.

Same thing here. It's one thing if you get to choose whether, say, Facebook content shows up for you, but entirely different if the person operating your instance makes that decision for you and blocks it for you so you don't even have the choice.

Let's say that you are an Amazon subscriber and get useful emails from Amazon. It would really stink if your email server administrator up and decided to block all email from Amazon, even the stuff that you actually really needed to see.

@stux

@gvs

That's not the technical description I was looking for.

I understand that it's your goals, but how do you expect to get there? What would the protocol look like? What would signaling look like in order to accomplish private transactions that couldn't be tracked?

You say they failed to implement privacy protections, but I'm asking specifically how those protections might have worked.

There may have been very good reasons not to include them, after all.

@profzwolfe

Honestly, the who situation had become such a mess, especially with the NC SC ruling late in the game, that such a vague conclusion was almost hard to avoid.

I'm with Thomas. This had become such a mess that it was no longer a solid vehicle for addressing the question. SCOTUS should have punted to avoid this sort of outcome.

@Dahlialith

@josephramoney@mastodon.online

That's simply not true, as nowhere in Moore v Harper was there a legislature insisting on such a right.

Heck, the Court's own opinion emphasized this, that the plaintiffs weren't putting such an argument forward.

Yes, a ton of sensational articles have been written saying otherwise, but when you read the actual opinion, it debunks such claims pretty easily.

@gvs

I mean technically, what exact feature would be added to get where you want to go?

@BrentToderian

I mean, don't overlook the simple fact that we drive and own cars because they actually do make our lives better.

We don't take on that expense just to do it.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy of big evil manufacturers. Sometimes people do things because they are legitimately the best for those people, and the manufacturers serve to support the things that make our lives better.

@gvs

What kind of privacy protections would you have had them include?

@jchyip

But for those of us who do use Bitcoin as currency, it's a real value to us.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss minority interests by focusing on stats. Those are real people behind the numbers.

@SirTapTap

Well that's not true.
If you read the current court's opinions they have precedents at the core of most of their arguments. It's precedent after precedent in their conclusions.

As for 6-3, the reason it wasn't 9-0 is because three justices pointed out that there wasn't a live controversy that could be addressed:

"In short, this case is over, and petitioners won. The trial court’s original final judgment in favor of petitioners, affirmed by the State Supreme Court in Harper III, represents “the final determination of the rights of the parties” in this case. [...] As a result, petitioners’ alternative Elections Clause defense to those claims no longer requires decision; the merits of that defense simply have no bearing on the judgment between the parties in this action. That is the definition of mootness for an issue."

@krisnelson

Well, yes, really. It did happen. You seem surprised by that, which really should be a sign that you don't really understand the argument and why it was so concrete.

In the end it had the support of both the plain text and history of law. That's the reason it was not laughed right out of court, because there was something to it.

@jerrylevine

@SirTapTap

I mean, it's not surprising to people who follow the Court more closely.

I honestly believe that very often any person who is surprised by a Supreme Court decision needs to reevaluate where they are getting their news, since apparently their news source is misleading them as to how the court is operating.

@JoshuaHolland

Never let boring facts stand in the way of a clickbait headline.

Sigh

@atomicpoet

Ha, I would take it a little bit farther and point out that ActivityPub not only fails to safeguard privacy but it actively broadcasts these messages to other people.

It's not even about a wall. It's about yelling and hoping that only the right people hear it.