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
@freemo one way to find out!
Maybe #MediaMatters could get on this new hardhitting research question.
@spaceflight the mainstream media reserves questioning rigor for politics?!
Since when!
Even today social media is full of posts to articles that don't match underlying documentation.
I'd say space exploration gets about the same treatment, and that's a huge problem.
@SteveThompson Slate is getting this backwards.
Thomas was ADDRESSING the mess, and this was part of cleaning it up.
For courts to act on a private right of action that didn't exist under law, that our democratic process didn't grant, is a misapplication of the VRA that needed to be fixed.
it was a mess.
So this is cleaning that up, AND reinforcing the authority of our democratic process to change the law if it needs change.
What Slate presents, in rather breathless fashion, as the problem is actually a solution.
@birdutterance well it's about balance and compromise around educated consensus where lines should be drawn.
When you talk about freedom needing to be present as a minimum that doesn't sound like being open to respecting things like bodily autonomy. Rather, it sounds like a pretty open door to quashing of actions and ideas that the folks in power happen to dislike.
It's not about everything goes. It's about sitting down and saying, ok, are we really going to enforce this level of conformity? Or might we appreciate that when people have more freedom than the bare minimum, some actually great and important things can happen?
@Xucaen Well, I think it's always important to avoid equating oneself with either their job or their work.
AI may replace some of our tasks, but it won't replace us. We'll still be around, and still able to work on making advancements by working with AI.
@Bigthinkingcap obviously a lot of people agree with that sentiment, but what's missing from the list is the actual job, the management of the executive branch of government.
First let's work on that.
@wjmaggos
1) ActivityPub may be overkill for what a person wants to do
2) If they just use ActivityPub they'll have trouble engaging with other networks that don't interface with AP
3) A person might already have content management systems in place that don't support ActivityPub
I could go on. Lots of potential drawbacks.
"Just adopt my standard" is a bit unrealistic in the real world.
volkris
boosted
@admins Holy itchy trigger finger Batman. I went through their list and they blocked journa.host because they are “an instance of journalists?” I would consider this a badge of honor. You aren’t truly on Mastodon until you’ve been blocked by .a*t! We made it, folks!
Why not push for Fediverse apps with RSS support including one click access to boost articles?
Best of both worlds.
@maegul it gives me a chuckle that the desktop computing experience might be described this way these days.
For so long choice of platform/OS was a core element of desktop computing as your version of Windows or OS2 or MacOS really locked you into one system and sets of available apps.
I guess the web may have broken some of those restrictions.
@mrzaius no.
As you can see in the complaint, it is not saying it's illegal to engage in excessive scrolling or refreshing.
@molly0xfff it's about taking down an article that they charge is materially and intentionally deceptive, inflicting intentional harm to their business in the process.
That's a pretty important part of the story!
It's not just I don't like your article.
@birdutterance how do you figure?
Again that stance sounds pretty indefensible.
@kaffeeringe @arstechnica
@kaffeeringe and I'd say it's a violation of human dignity to tell people what they can and can't do with their organs *shrug*
I also don't see how undermining others' self ownership implies any protection for you.
@Jamesboswell well no because that's not what's being alleged here. They don't question whether MM found such an ad. In fact they flat out said the outfit did.
The complaint is that MM intentionally set up accounts that were abnormal, that put fingers on the scales, and then reported as if their results were normal, misleading the public.
It's like going to a restaurant and asking for some bizarre addition to your meal, over the chef's objections, and then putting out a review acting like that's just the way the meal always came.
@ahoyboyhoy it's not about a right to strike, though.That's not the question on the table. It's about whether or not to block a worker from contracting his labor under terms he sees fit and beneficial.
The proposal is to outlaw the worker's ability to agree not to strike when an employer offers terms favorable to the worker, and so using law to remove that agency from the worker.
@birdutterance I don't think that perspective is very defensible, but in the end, that's one reason to allow people to go their different directions with whatever conclusions they come to about the world, so long as they're not able to oppose their own on others :-)
@kaffeeringe @arstechnica
@kaffeeringe and that makes it okay?
It strikes me as being pretty blithe to tell me what I can't do with my own body in my own future merely because, well, every law imposes on me.
@pezmico but it's not a matter of information blackout that proves there is no genocide. It's a matter of actual positive information coming out of the country that debunks those claims.
It's not the lack of information; it's the existence of information showing otherwise.
@RebelGeek99 well it's a symptom of public health officials actively blurring the line between health and politics, really spoiling public faith in those institutions as the public has lost faith in so many others.
It's not that access to safe clean air is political. It's that public health officials blurred the lines politicizing the ways to get to that goal.
Or to put it a different way, everybody agrees that access to safe clean air is a good thing. That is not political. But the methods to get people safe clean air was politicized by public health officials, and it's going to be hard to recover from that.
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:
