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
The Supreme Court is accountable to the people that we elect to Congress, who have the ability to impeach and remove any justice that's misbehaving.
This needs to be shouted loudly and often as so many seem to be missing that through our democratic processes we have the tools through which to resolve so many disputes in society these days, including this one.
Perhaps one doesn't like that a justice isn't being impeached and removed. Fine! Stop voting for representatives who are failing to impeach, and push others to do the same.
When we keep reelecting bad representatives, well, that's on us, but it doesn't change that we have that mechanism should we choose to use it.
The order from the Court didn't specify a conflict of interest.
@ekes well, not quite:
Fediverse didn't seek to decentralize social media but rather to re-centralize it around instances.
There are major implications of that design decision, on all levels from technological through social organization.
We'll see what comes of Bluesky. Sure, they're moving suspiciously slowly, but that in itself isn't reason to make assumptions about their intentions.
Yes, that's exactly what happened: the Court announced that they didn't have enough justices among themselves interested in taking the case and that Thomas didn't participate in the discussion where they figured out if they wanted to take it.
That's all, and as usual the Court issued that resolution without providing any additional detail.
A lot of people are speculating and trying to make assumptions, but it's all just speculation past that.
The Court can't do much as it doesn't have that sort of power.
It would take action of the Executive Branch to impact social media in the way you fear.
This wasn't about the cars themselves but about whether the drivers could get out of the arbitration agreement that they'd agreed to.
The question about marketing will now be resolved through arbitration, as per the agreement.
*shrug* I suggest we read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment if we want to know what it says.
If other sources reliably quote it great! If they don't that's a shame. But no matter whether they're reliable or not (and The Atlantic is hardly reliable), the amendment says what it says.
We can read it for ourselves, so let's go right to the source to see what it says.
If small minorities are able to conduct such sabotage then we're not talking about democracy in the first place.
The two statements are inconsistent.
It's an ActivityPub design issue.
AP specifies everything from a bloated signaling protocol through behaviors that suggest exponential processing and traffic as functions of instances involved in a post.
It doesn't matter how well an implementation is written; it will be subject to that design.
Hate speech is an integral part of Twitter?
You're saying the social media platform would just collapse without hate speech?
That's clearly wrong.
Also, I don't care about whatever ridiculous pronouncements the EU makes. They can deal with their own screwy system.
I mean, we all are.
We can all read the opinions ourselves and judge them based on their reasoning, though too few people bother to read opinions before adopting VERY STRONG OPINIONS about what those unread opinions actually say.
This is such an important point that so many, sadly, miss.
volkris
boosted
The justices often get pigeon-holed as "conservative" or "liberal", but political scientist John Tures says that's too simplistic.
Typically, over half of decisions each term (which may be the less controversial and publicized ones) are decided unanimously or 8-1.
#uspolitics #USPol #SCOTUS (2 of 3)
This take gets the story a bit wrong.
It's not that the legislature had gerrymandered black voters out of a fair map but the opposite: the Court ruled AL *must* gerrymander a map that takes race into account.
And now it's not that the Supreme Court quickly batted down the challenge but that it simply said it wasn't going to get involved.
@argv_minus_one@mstdn.party
Oh, an awful lot of conservatives do think Trump has/had honorable intentions.
Studies of the electorate showed otherwise: Trump managed to bring together a coalition of different groups--many who had huge disagreements with others--in a way that no other candidate could.
It wasn't a case of splitting of the vote. It was more that Trump managed to make himself into a Rorschach exam onto which those different groups could project their own notions of what they wanted.
Republicans voted FOR Trump. They didn't vote against other candidates in this case.
Really?
It seems like the opposition split would have just split the remaining 56% and not impacted the 43.9%.
If anything the fighting might have taken even more votes away as people tried to bolster their favorites.
I mean, RFKJ has made opposition to modern authoritarianism central to his political posture for the past few years.
I think you have that backwards.
That's not what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xiv3
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:
