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
No, the biographer who's served as the primary source for this said that it was never enabled.
I don't know why msn didn't include that really important detail, but they also don't seem to have countered even Musk's own claim.
https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361
This is the lawsuit over Internet Archive violating copyright laws by copying books without permission, yeah?
This isn't about libraries being under attack. It's about the established laws surrounding IP, and while I'd say copyright laws need serious reform, this sort of victimhood appeal isn't going to get us there.
Let's show the impact of US law on access to information in the course of getting the laws fixed for all of us.
The right way to fix a law is through legislation, the democratic process, not through hopes that this time a court might bend your way.
#libraries #USPolitics #politicalscience #legislation #Congress
The exact same approach can be taken on Twitter, though.
Yes, Twitter does provide the additional official option, but this out-of-band approach is also available, just as a matter of knowledge and using available technology.
It doesn't rely on any particular ActivityPub functionality.
You don't think the claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy is at all in doubt considering the left-wing authorship?
I'd LOVE for people to ignore the red herring that is putting identity over content, but if we're going to claim this is a right-wing conspiracy, then we're already looking at authorship, which was left-wing.
I don't think these stories should matter, but if they do then let's get them right.
I never said you wrote the article.
The article misrepresents the situation in Congress, and if you and I are on the same page, then great!
@haploc it's important to realize that every post on #fediverse, even if it's in reply to someone else, is its own standalone bit of content being shared out into the public.
Even if you set the post to have restricted visibility, that's more of a suggestion than a requirement, and the post gets transmitted out to be displayed to whomever each instance decides to display it to.
So in theory an instance COULD be smart and try to display the reply to a followers only post only to those followers, but it's up to each instance what to do with the post.
In other words, questions like these have no single answer since it's up to each instance how to handle it, even though it can be said that instances generally handle the situation in such and such a way.
As if #McCarthy has control of the people we elect to Congress?
We're watching the result of our own votes, that have set up a dysfunctional legislative branch.
That's not McCarthy's nightmarish fall. He's merely overseeing the nightmare we chose to vote into office.
I mean, there are at TON of ragebait/clickbait posts on the feed I see every single day on #fediverse.
#QT does exist here, but I never see the ragebait coming from those.
I mainly see it from other people who have already bought in to it and are sharing it themselves, along with a good helping of their own rage to go with it.
The only way Bitcoin mining ever makes money is because people value it. Otherwise it wouldn't have that value.
So it's can't be useless, by definition, since people value the use.
YOU may not personally have a use for it, just as I have no use for the Superbowl or a subscription to dogfood delivery to my doorstep, but that doesn't mean nobody else has use for it either.
That story has been debunked by its primary source, though.
No, Musk didn't sabotage a military operation in Ukraine, according to the original writer that's been cited. Instead, Musk was asked for help, and he declined to help.
That's not sabotage; it's a decision to not get involved.
The US government acts against Musk and his interests all the time. See, for example, the FAA's recent ruling against a flight license for SpaceX.
This whole story about US vs Musk is just sensationalist clickbait, not reality.
Elon Musk 🆚 California
But in this case Musk isn't IGNORING state and federal laws, but rather the opposite, APPLYING a federal law to address a state law.
He's not ignoring law here; he's emphatically invoking them.
@EU_Commission
Elon Musk 🆚 California
Well I assume the EU will use the police powers that it has at its disposal.
As for Musk, I think you have the story a bit backwards, as he is attempting to use federal laws to protect himself from state laws. The power in that case is vested in federal law, not Musk.
I mean our democratic process doesn't buy these stories about justices being bought and paid for in the first place.
Yes, some special interest groups and clickbait reporters are making good with all of those stories that are often debunked pretty quickly, but never mind that.
In general keep in mind that the Supreme Court doesn't make judgments of others. It's mostly an appellate court considering the work of lower courts, not of the others being judged.
So I guess I'm saying, I think you are really kind of going chaotically off base here, being misled both by stories with conflicts of interests and by misunderstandings of how the Supreme Court works in the first place.
Just watch out for those people who are making money by selling these dramatic stories.
Again it's more complicated than that. The math is just more complicated.
If you expend energy, heat energy yes, to change to a more effective way of managing heat, basically sometimes that investment leads to a net gain in heat ejection.
Or to put it practically, the relatively small amount of heat that water pumps produce might pay off in enormously more effective rejection of heat into space.
Stopping global warming is a completely different question. There's no panacea here. However, the point is that the math is a little more complicated, and sometimes spending a little extra heat energy will pay off by better managing the base load that is a given.
Well it's tricky because in one case you're talking about threatening judicial independence, and in the other you're talking about a story that's already been discredited by its source.
But keeping the drama alive gets news outfits lots of clicks and ad revenue, facts aside, so we keep getting hit with the slanted dramatic tellings.
I mean, NFTs without fraudulent investment angles are still NFTs just as cash without pyramid schemes is still cash.
It's unfortunate that people confuse the technology that has real use with dishonest schemes that have leveraged the new technology against those not familiar with it.
Properly applied by law it should all fail to bits even within the US.
From jurisdictional issues through constitutional and practical issues, such regulations should not be really enforceable within the US, much less internationally.
Sadly, all too often the laws are kind of ignored for practical or political reasons.
@lauren
Just keep in mind that different users seek very different experiences, so while the block feature can help each user tailor their experience to their want, other levels of moderation go the other way, imposing an experience on others despite the diversity of preferences of users.
So I wouldn't talk about blocking and reporting and moderation in the same category. They can have very different implications.
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:
