volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@tcely I agree that it isn't really broken, however the problem is that so many on fediverse are actively misinformed about how privacy on the platform works.

I don't want to say it is using the wrong mental model because it's something a little more basic than that. Users are simply misled about privacy.

To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing with the post, it's more about how do we frame this in a way that addresses the situation.

Heck, I don't think we're even disagreeing with the original post there.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed. That post described the problem as broken software, you describe it as users using the wrong mental model, and I describe it as users being misinformed about how it works, and the funny thing is I end up circling back to the original post trying to raise awareness and clarify that for users.

Maybe it's three takes on the same problem :-)

@olmitch how are they planning on gaining critical mass, is the hard question.

@ArtBear@mastodonapp.uk off the top of my head is not so much that there are groups in ActivityPub as much as the standard explicitly says that an ID doesn't have to necessarily be an individual user, so it can be a group.

Off the top of my head I don't remember any group functionality beyond that, saying you can be a group.

@kurtsh @JonChevreau

@kcarruthers yep!

And that's a very good reason to keep voters in the story, because it emphasizes that we really need to do a much better job of informing voters about how their own government works.

They really are core to so many issues that we are having.

That's why I want to keep talking about voters when these things happen, because voter is not only drive the process but represent an opportunity to fix a lot of things, if we focus on informing them better.

@mnutty Well then I guess like you said, here is a cartoonist lampooning journalism and the way they misreport fact to confirm biases all the time.

Jokes on us I guess.

@jensorensen

@shayz0rz interesting, I hadn't heard any Doctor Who news in a long time, so it looks like I need to figure out what people are talking about!

@kcarruthers The thing to keep in mind is that the public voted for the representation behind this stuff, so this stuff is addressing what the voters were concerned about.

It's always key to remember the roles of voters in these instances because they are the ones that we really need to engage with.

A lot of voters had questions about the election, and we would have been better to engage with their questions from the beginning rather than facing these cleanup jobs later.

@mnutty they literally cut off the text

How can you know that you know exactly what the speaker means when you deny that there is any context?

It's one thing to tolerate out of context reporting. It's something different to declare that there is no more context.

It's like flatly saying that there is nothing outside of the echo chamber.

It's a pretty telling statement to put on the table.

@jensorensen

@mnutty I agree that it captures the story states of much of MSM, but not the way you think.

The comic strip took the quote out of context, and so anyone who read the whole paragraph realizes that the comic strip is being a bit fast and loose with its facts, so the rest of it isn't very convincing.

Yes, much like so much reporting these days, which is why so many have lost trust in journalism.

@jensorensen

@TildeGartenzaun never said it was

@TildeGartenzaun again, it's great if you know that content you put into this platform isn't safe, but the problem is that an awful lot of other people don't know that, as they've been told the opposite.

Even the original picture above plays into that impression.

Contrasting with being owned by whomever, fine. But contrasting with stealing data reasonably makes a person think that data here won't be stolen.

@clintruin I like how you motioned to a conspiracy theory when saying it wasn't a conspiracy theory.

But you're bringing up easily debunkable parts of the theory.

Stacking the Supreme Court? No, the Court remains at nine members passed through the nomination and consent process. There's been no stacking.

Change laws? No, SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to change laws. Wrong branch of government. That's the legislative branch.

Remove checks and balances? No, checks and balances are alive and well, see for example SCOTUS not being able to change laws, that's the legislative branch.

The conspiracy theory you've been sold just doesn't match reality in front of us.

And you're STILL going back to the well of making things about personality instead of substance.

@lovelylovely

@TildeGartenzaun maybe, maybe not, but it concerns me that a lot of people on fediverse are actively mislead and told that their content is safer here.

A lot of people here are not just unaware of the insecurity but actively lead to believe that there is security when there isn't.

@AnthonyFStevens I don't know? I don't have an answer for you, I'm sorry.

@DavidBruchmann

@dramypsyd Yeah I think that's why it's so important to frame this as a matter of politeness first and foremost, not a matter of hard and fast objective line drawing.

It's politeness. You should, out of politeness, out of wanting to live in society where people are happy with each other, acknowledge and respect other people's preferences.

And if you don't you might have some social blowback.

So do your best. But once we raise the stakes to frame this as objective line drawing it really complicates everything about it.

@HunDriverWidow The Supreme Court isn't an expert in biology, though.

So that spinning of this doesn't really hold water.

Might as well ask the guy at the end of the bar for his opinion.

@argv_minus_one@mstdn.party Well that's factually untrue.