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
@Dandomino a typical fascist promoting policies of transferring power down from where it's been concentrated?
Fascinating...
@chrisgeidner the problem is, yes, his brief was unambiguous, but people are misrepresenting what was in it anyway.
It's just the post-fact world we live in these days.
@marynelson8 democracy elected him, though.
And I'm positive that we will go on to re-elect almost all of the people involved in this whole circus.
@maniajack same thing.
Speakers don't have nearly the authority many folks on here are freaking out about.
I really don't know who's been talking as if the Speaker has so much absolute power, but that's just not how the various rules and laws of the US government are set up.
@evan bad because the result might be new laws and regulations that instances will struggle with.
@3dogcouch it shouldn't be a problem to charge and try a justice for breaking a federal law.
It has to be breaking of an actual federal law, though, not simply the way the justice conducts themselves in office. That's what impeachment is for; none of the DOJ's business.
Remember, the reason there's a special exception against charging a sitting president is because DOJ acts under authority of the president, so it would be the president charging himself, causing a conflict of interests.
That conflict doesn't come up with justices.
@clueless_capybara think of it like accessing the Internet through a PC vs a cell phone.
It's all the same Internet but the PC and the phone will give you very different experiences. Web pages will at least be much smaller :) but they might also display different versions on the phone, versions better tailored to the different interfaces.
Same with #Fediverse.
Behind the scenes it's all the same system, but each of these programs is basically a different interface optimized for a different use.
So #Mastodon is an interface optimized for microblogging, Pixelfed is optimized for photos, etc.
All one system, but different ways of displaying the system based on different priorities.
@dcdeejay well, the Supreme Court doesn't generally sit in judgment of others.
As it's primarily an appellate court, it mainly judges other courts--their decisions--not people.
@hrefna honestly, if a user is that concerned about seeing content they don't want to see, the solution is probably more along the lines of opting in than blocking out, only allowing content from preapproved speakers than reacting to content after the fact.
There have been longstanding ideas with names like WoT, Web of Trust, where folks are judged based on their in person connections to you, and it's one solution to only display content that's trusted by people the user trusts.
And this sort of thing can be tailored to the individual user, to empower them to have the experience they prefer.
With the furor over the election of #Johnson to Speaker of the House spreading through the feeds here, NOW can we finally hold #Democrats responsible for the votes they actively chose to place that set this up and enabled the #GOP nutjobs?
Maybe people were holding out over a misguided fantasy that Dems and Reps would form a sort of coalition government, but now that they've elected someone so many here don't like, is finally OK to point out that their strategy was a bad one?
@dangillmor Jesus, if you think Johnson is a far right extremist, then it sounds like you haven't had much contact with far right extremists.
They're rejecting the guy for being too moderate.
@Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social that's not what happened, though, as confirmed by the Congressional Record.
Yes, a whole lot of people circulated that narrative, but it was a lie.
I mean, you just listed off a bunch of claims that have been overblown.
So... those.
Right, but AP has shown growing pains and technological issues that make it possible that in the end we'll talk about how AP has been the one kneecapping itself.
Bluesky might have the better solutions that allow it to succeed where AP has failed, if they ever manage to finally release.
We'll see.
@mnutty that seems to be the way they're spinning it, but this sounds to me like it's WAY lenient compared to the accusations they've made.
When you declare that someone is such an existential threat to democracy but then let them off the hook... that's striking to me.
And if their testimony was THAT critical to making a case, that just sounds like the case is just that weak.
I don't think people are considering the other side of this coin.
@Aethelstan because based on their voting patterns it seems unlikely that Dems would be willing to compromise.
So far none of them have broken from their party line, so there's no indication that they're up for it.
They're enjoying maintaining this gridlock as they seem to be winning the messaging war.
@lascapi it's possible, but there are some security related issues under the hood.
The protocols do involve some functions that check to make sure participants are who they say they are, and breaking out of that model does kind of break those protections.
Just because they're slow doesn't mean it's not still early stages.
If they end up with something better, then we can still grouse about the pace of their development, but they'll have gotten there in the end!
But that just means AT and Bluesky are in their early stages with potential to be way better in the not-so-distant-future.
There are a lot of problems with ActivityPub on Mastodon. Hopefully Bluesky will avoid those pitfalls.
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:
