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
I think the problem is that people are comparing against a reality that doesn't exist and never has.
It's not like Threads joining is going to wreck some system that preserved privacy. There IS no system that preserves privacy right now. Meta can ALREADY vacuum up so much of this information if it wants to, as can anybody else, whether or not it decides to join and federate.
So it's not a choice between privacy versus allowing Threads on. There is no choice of privacy here. So that's a false dichotomy.
And that users today don't realize how unprivate the system is today is itself a problem that has nothing to do with Meta. That people believe this is the choice goes to show that they are uninformed about how there is no choice of privacy, goes to show how they believe the system is private when it really isn't.
They're not preventing the EPA from carrying out its mandate. That's just not factually correct. Instead they pointed out that the president has no legal authority to have the EPA bring down the force of government against us in the way that they did.
So when you say you're not sure how this stuff fights fascism, you need to go to the facts of the cases, where the president was claiming unilateral rights to act, often against civilians, and the court simply said no, the president is not above the law like that.
The facts on the ground are important, and it sounds like you are missing the facts in all of these cases.
At this point I just really note that you continue to refrain from siding any particular passage from the opinion that you might disagree with.
Again: hand waving
I mean just go through the headline rulings of this term, from saying that the executive does not have unilateral authority to override congressional budgeting with student loans through saying that the executive does not have unilateral authority to drop the hammer on people who are involved with waterways.
This term has been strikingly anti-facism under definitions like yours.
It has been exactly citing legal reasons that the executive cannot enrich itself, I guess, without authority from the democratic process.
Well I think I am just not so quick to embrace deficiencies in the software of the moment. I would like to see improvements in the software, hopefully improvements that wouldn't actually take all that long to implement.
Surely UIs can be updated in a matter of weeks, not years, to give users more power instead of relying on administrators making those choices for swaths of users.
I'm just not so ready to give up on users having control of their experiences, especially in this environment where so many people are complaining about other platforms that they have left because of administrators taking that power over users.
That's not at all what I am saying, so if that's what you think I have said, I assure you you have misunderstood.
... they spelled out the standing in the opinion, but never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, huh?
Again, feel free to lay out exactly where you disagree with the ruling. I'm BEGGING you at this point to actually address the ruling instead of handwaving about matters they actually did address and settle.
Going out of their way to say why an argument doesn't hold water doesn't mean it was a lawful policy. It means they've dotted their is, closing out various arguments that it is lawful.
It's really twisting things, saying that being careful to get it right is proof that they're wrong.
It's foolish in the extreme that anyone would be taking that position.
I think the issue is that I've read the actual opinion that addressed and refuted this sort of argument head on!
I mean, I'm not going to let some Politico clickbait set up a strawman when the SCOTUS ruling headed off this claim.
It'd be one thing if the Court let this go, but no, it went out of its way to explain why this perspective is incorrect, both factually and as a matter of law.
So like I said, feel free to say exactly where you believe the SCOTUS refutation of this claim is faulty. Otherwise, the opinion speaks for itself, and Politico is just off the mark.
If that's what you're basing your claim on, well the Court explicitly addressed that, so where exactly do you say the Court went wrong in countering this argument?
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
YES! Because that's how the US system of government works.
The losers in a Supreme Court argument have had their argument authoritatively declared wrong, by law, regardless of what we think about it.
The winners of Dred Scott won, and the losers lost. Later on those topics were reconsidered, but as it stood then, that was the ruling.
We don't have to agree with the ruling of the Court, but it is nonetheless true that the ones who lost at the Court had their argument officially rejected.
Look it up? No, if you're looking to make a convincing argument, then present the factual basis for what you're trying to convince others of.
Or else, why bother?
If you can't lay your argument on the table, why bother handwaving at it?
You say Congress did exactly that, ok, *where* did they do that?
There was a plaintiff that didn't know why it was even involved? Who?
It's pretty out there to expect other people to support your own out there claims if you're not interested in doing so.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
Why read the dissent to see what SCOTUS said? We can read the opinion directly, without having to rely on the argument that didn't carry the day.
The dissent is wrong. How do we know? Because, legally, it was determined to be wrong.
Why in the world would we ignore what we can read for our own eyes to instead substitute a perspective that was on the losing end of the argument?
The Supreme Court ruled on government action.
People can challenge Hollywood all they want, but it wouldn't be based on the SCOTUS ruling.
Hollywood, as a private entity, is free to discriminate based on race all it wants.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
That's not what the Supreme Court ruled, though.
It was not the question before the court.
Well it doesn't really matter because by law they don't have the authority to make such determinations.
It's up to Congress to pass those laws. SCOTUS is required to follow the law.
So if students need loan forgiveness, that's up to congresspeople to hear and to pass new legislation addressing it.
The Supreme Court has no business overriding democratically passed law on account of their friends.
I mean, they're free to misrepresent the ruling.
Just as we're free to push back and say such a stance is ridiculous and completely unsupported by the Court.
@bigheadtales Is it, though?
And here I thought the hallmarks of fascism were about folks in power coming down on the population.
I didn't think fascism was generally regarded as what's happening in peoples' personal finances.
When SCOTUS issues ruling after ruling restraining the police, I really don't care what their bank accounts look like.
Oh, my whole point is that empowering users IS the middle ground.
ActivityPub is sadly lacking in the ability of users to migrate between instances, even overlooking all of the issues involved in the positives for having instances in the first place, the communal aspect of it.
So, should the admin expose their users to Meta? Should they close it off? Meh, middle ground is letting each user choose what experience they want.
@thenexusofprivacy @folkerschamel
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:
