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
@chris I personally find E2EE very desirable in social networks, but different platforms have made design decisions that are favorable or hostile to it, based on their design philosophies.
#Fediverse , for example, in focusing on instances instead of users as being primary is not very compatible with E2EE.
And that runs right up against the above post about governance.
If the platform's philosophy is one about promoting the governance of users, that's going to run up against these issues of privacy and encryption, just as happens in world governments all the time.
So there's a tradeoff to be had, distributed privacy vs centralized governance.
I find E2EE desirable in social networks, but an awful lot of people prefer governing instances.
volkris
boosted
Why would I trust your word on that, though?
You're clearly opposing them, so you're not exactly a neutral speaker on the matter.
If I want to know their position then I'd like to hear it from them *at least* second hand, but you're not even providing that.
You'e asking us to rush to judgment here, acting out of prejudice against the group, with little more than your own word about the situation.
You're not making a compelling case here.
I think that might be regarded as a feature :)
Or, at least, it was left as a higher layer of the system, with AP just concerning itself with moving content around.
It's the same as AP not specifying how one gets an account on Mastodon or how hashtags or display algorithms are to function.
On the up side, like I said above I haven't seen a really good solution to the UI issues if integrating groups here, so at least AP didn't standardize on a bad solution.
I don't know what explanation there could be.
That's why I'd like to hear their explanation from them instead of jumping to conclusions.
I was hoping they gave an explanation to someone else who wanted to get to the bottom of the complaint.
Well anyway, here's the docket for the case directly from the Supreme Court, that you can read through with your own eyes to see where you're getting the facts a bit wrong.
I think it's important to fact check stuff like this especially to find out that you can't trust whomever seems to have been telling the misleading stories about the case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-463.html
@MisuseCase so perhaps that gets into people believing false information about government giving false information about nuclear safety because others actors, whether honest or dishonest, made those false claims.
Or to rephrase the original point, people don't believe the official line about the safety of the water because they *perceive* that governments have routinely lied.
Insert that word and the original post might stand.
Robert Reich is misleading the public, as usual.
We don't need to resort to shadowy conspiracy theories to figure out this result. The Court itself points out that it was deferring to the laws passed by our elected officials.
This isn't a story about Harlan Crow. This is a story about a bunch of elected officials that we really need to stop reelecting.
We disempower ourselves when we overlook our own electoral voice to instead believe Reich's theme.
Here's the ruling.
FWIW the #ActivityPub protocol seems to embrace things like groups, specifically saying that an entity in the system doesn't have to be an individual. So the underlying technology is already ready for groups.
I'd say the bigger issue is one of UI, how to display groups in a way that users will understand that they're engaging with a group, and how to avoid things like the notorious accidental reply-all in email.
That's a tricky problem to solve, so I hope it's solved sooner rather than later, then clients can move forward implementing the functionality in a better way.
Every so often I take a serious look at the code running my #Mastodon instance and I start to get a headache so I stop looking at it.
Well, what explanation did they give?
Well, the W3C might know a thing or two if you'd like some light weekend reading on the topic.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#delete-activity-outbox
But sure, have a nice weekend.
So it's an advantage that becomes vanishingly small as the one doing the cutting follows their incentive to make the difference also vanishingly small.
And that's enough to make the solution practically, if not ideally, very useful.
Right, because I'm viewing this based on the factual record, that's public record in courts' dockets, regardless of my personal preferences or outcomes.
When there's a problem to fix it's critical to correctly identify the problem, and when courts like SCOTUS are involved, the facts of the process are especially crucial.
So you're glossing over critical facts in what you're saying, getting the facts wrong, and that's no minor detail.
Let's say, for example, that you think a judge here was so in error that they need to be removed from office. Yes, that would be one way of addressing the problem BUT the it's critical to know which judge to target.
It is no minor detail that you're getting the facts of the case wrong even as you're focusing on eventual outcomes.
Well my first reply is that, for better or worse, keep in mind that Trump started his bid for presidency kind of a long time ago now. Time flies.
But really I would say that the only reason he ever managed to become president was due to all the garbage that was coming out of both parties for decades.
I'm not talking about the last few years. It's been generations of really trash messaging that set the stage for all of this.
It's not the last few years. We've had a generation of really garbage journalism really screwing over the country with crappy reporting.
But that's no different from any other internet activity.
I mean here on Mastodon / Fediverse there are no real deletions either.
Yeah, you can send out a deletion request, but it's all voluntary, exactly the same as IPFS.
Welcome to the internet.
Or I guess, welcome to reality. From the first publication of a newspaper there has never been real deletion. Anything you put out there can stay around as long as anybody who wants to keep it.
Woooow What in the world are you two talking about?
Republicans are better at messaging? The party that can't seem to break through left-leaning media outlets, can't seem to provide any balance as folks like Donald Trump vomit ridiculous statements left and right that cannot possibly make any sense to any rational listener?
No, Republicans are awful at messaging. It's just utter nonsense coming from them.
The problem is that even if Democrats can message a fantastic theory of the world, a lot of us listeners notice for ourselves that their theories just don't comport with the realities that we experience for ourselves.
You can't blame Republicans for that. They are garbage, but at the least they aren't telling us these stories that we can see with our own eyes aren't true.
@freemo which means that the person cutting has every interest to make sure both pieces are the same size!
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:
