volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@daedalean

You're missing that those two months occurred BEFORE the legal process to count the EC votes.
It was a general range of time before the election, not following the election, that he supposedly lost, before it occurred.

You're missing the big issue with this accusation, that the guy supposedly refuted an election that hadn't happened yet, by the indictment's own admission if not general knowledge about how the process works in the US, by law.

@CatHat You misunderstand.

This is not about blocking Nazis. They are talking about blocking servers.

@WaddlingFungus

@coreyrayburnyung

Right, maybe, but with so much of the process, reviewer after reviewer, agreeing that his case didn't merit overturning, it's easy to see why SCOTUS didn't feel like this was an exceptional moment to interfere in the state proceedings.

I haven't seen any convincing claim of an error in the process that doesn't come down to mere disagreement with the outcome.

It sounds like the applicant had his day(s) in court, regardless of what you or I or a Justice might think about how the courts ruled.

@chrisgeidner

@ouij

IMO, I gripe that the protocol is not beautifully designed at all :)

Setting that aside, though, generally when you search for a hashtag through your home account/instance, the instance doesn't search all of fediverse for it, but only searches through the limited number of posts that have happened to be shared to that one instance that you're on.

That really limits the horizon of content that is available for it to show you, but it's how the system was designed to function.

To put it a different way, each instance only subscribes to feeds that its users have expressed interest in, and so each can only sort through posts in those limited feeds. That's what you're seeing, the window that your particular instance has on the larger network.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

@WaddlingFungus

Personally, I go farther than that: I would only block a server for infrastructure reasons, if a server is causing a technical threat to the system, flooding messages or whatever.

Blocking an instance over content is a technical solution to a social problem.

Throttling is fine. You don't have to promote an instance's content in your own public stream. You don't have to actively promote the problematic instance.

But beyond that, I'd prefer to focus on empowering users to shape their own experiences, to shape the content they see as they wish, and put only technical issues in the hands of server operators.

@ned

I don't think that the CBC forgot.
It's just that their goals of broadcasting widely were better met by being on Twitter than not.

@jd

@cadenza

Again, so what's your goal?

Also, you seem quite obsessed with Nazis...

@Archasa

Are those the comments that also replied to the same comment that you're either looking at or that you've replied to?

My impression (I could be wrong) is that Mastodon treats it like a tree of branching threads, so it will display comments that are on the same fork of conversation that you're on.

So that if you click on the first post, THEN you're looking at the whole tree, and it will show a lot more comments.

@cadenza

Firstly, you're still arguing against strawmen, debating against claims that aren't on the table.

But putting that aside, here's a higher level question: you seem to be saying that there's no point discussing things with those who don't already agree with the position, at which point I'd ask, What's the point?

If you've given up on bringing others over to your perspective, then what's the point of even exploring the perspective?

It strikes me as just spinning wheels at that point, accepting the lines as they're drawn with no hope of moving anyone.

@jupiter_rowland

It really comes down to something like artist's intent.

It comes down to what the poster intends their post to be like.

@eternity

I mean, sometimes users want things because they simply provide better experiences?

In my experience the chronological feed hides good stuff int he stream of a ton of uninteresting and repetitive stuff, so a better algorithm would help show me better stuff than the chronological feeds does.

@dogcanyon

Out of curiosity, when you say all over the news media, what outlets do you have in mind?

The reason I ask is because I hear claims that not only "is nobody talking about" something or other, but that someone actually went to see and noted the absence of talk.

@RichStein

But never overlook the core factor that voters elect, and reelect, these people.

No matter WHY our representatives do what they do, apparently we voters are generally OK with it since we keep sending the same people back to Congress.
@GrrlScientist

@Archasa

As far as I can tell, that's the expected behavior of the Mastodon UI, and we're supposed to open the original post if we want to see those conversations.

I believe the idea is to filter out all of the other comments by default to focus on our own exchanges.

@cadenza

This isn't about arguing against fascists, though. It's more about how the argument might look to third parties.

Sure, you can't win an argument against an irrational person, but when I see someone making an argument that seems detached from reporting and from the stances being taken by the other side, that argument isn't convincing to anyone else.

If the point is the preach to the choir, fine. But if the point is to raise awareness or convince others of something, then that weakness in the argument works against the goal.

@Kozmo

The thing is, HOW would it end up at the Supreme Court?

There would have to be some sort of action against the court for the court to rule on, but there is really no action that can be taken against the court, and so there would be nothing to rule on, which in the end really proves Alito correct.

Constitutionally Congress has no right of action against the court so there is no action that can be taken in the first place, just as the separation of powers dictates.

@uspolitics