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
@jrm4 I don't think it's a zero sum game, though.
We can both win, with Fediverse and Threads serving different user bases and even benefiting from each other.
@smallpatatas@mstdn.patatas.ca but this wouldn't be giving Meta control over Fediverse.
Fediverse instances would still be in charge of user experiences.
I think @tedcurran puts his finger on something important, that this would be the best of both worlds, Threads basically offering more content to Fediverse for free while not having control over the system.
That's not quite right. With the way Fediverse is designed you CAN reply back, and others can see those replies calling out disinformation, even if the replies never get back to the ones posting it, who presumably might not care anyway.
This is the same as people complaining today about blocked users being able to reply.
Well, that, which so many consider a bug, would be a feature in this context.
Threads will only be setting an minimum standard for TOS across the Fediverse if people on the Fediverse tend to care what Meta thinks. Which I'm not sure they do.
We've already seen significant calls for minimal TOS on Fediverse and they haven't really worked.
I don't think Threads will change that.
@lauren
#Fediverse/#Mastodon is, by design, very open with basically no privacy protections.
It's a public broadcast model, with almost everything you put on here being subject to being broadcast to all other instances that are interested.
If you want to control where your content goes, don't use Fediverse.
It really is that stark.
I assume #Meta has already been vacuuming up all of this content we've been broadcasting here.
volkris
boosted
I co-sign this…BUT
To be clear, since I’ve described the #Fediverse as if #Usenet and a methadone clinic got married, and had a love child, I don’t trust a heroin dealer.
Keep your head on a swivel.
@Linux_Is_Best@mstdn.social I think you really overestimate many of the factors that you see as a threat in your thread.
For example, I think you overestimate the importance of one way interactions, even if Threads makes that permanent, which it's reasonable to think they may not.
In the end, though, from one way interaction through features, if Threads gives user more of the experience they want, hey good for them.
Let Fediverse platforms rise to the occasion and make their own experiences better.
We all win from that.
SCOTUS reversed the FL court ruling, which effectively shows the FL court to be a lower court, even if one wishes to split hairs about the different court systems.
SCOTUS found that the FL court didn't properly apply *federal* law, which supersedes state law, so this wasn't even about the final arbiter of state law.
You might find the interpretation of the equal protection clause dubious, but well, to paraphrase, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of federal law.
@AnneTheWriter1 well it's in the basic design of federation, where the focus on instances over users means that instances are free to broadcast whatever content they want into other instances' incoming streams.
If I'm an advertiser and I set up on one instance to start spamming ads to others, there's nothing you or your instance can do to force my instance to either delete my account or punish me for it.
It's just the way Mastodon/fediverse is organized, with independent instances setting their own rules.
@goatsarah not necessarily.
If nothing else, it's an announcement of testing, so they wouldn't necessarily seek to use it as an official channel until it's solid.
@amerika it is political theater.
Sadly, we keep electing political actors (in the theater sense) and the general public doesn't know their civics well enough to realize that so much of it is an act.
We get the political theater that we vote for.
@SarahBreau SCOTX said the opposite, that the abortion WAS allowed in such a case.
And SCOTX said so over and over in its ruling, trying to avoid people misinterpreting their ruling.
As for Paxton, I don't know or care what he said. If he threatened the doctor illegally then he needs to be called out on that.
I imagine he was grandstanding for political reasons.
@ShaunBurch seems pretty clear to me that there is additional value!
If you value content in a particular language, then that is more value to you.
I honestly don't think this is a tricky question.
@rivetgeek you know, I sort of suspected that, but notably Hunter Biden's press statements today seemed to indicate that they're not actually fabricated.
He basically said they weren't, which was very interesting to me.
All this time I thought the case might be pretty fabricated, but today Hunter came out and pretty much confirmed that the evidence was valid.
Interesting times we live in.
@amerika The problem with that is, at the moment Biden is in charge of the jails, so he's very unlikely to jail himself.
IF we assume these accusations are accurate, then impeachment is the first step to justice, getting those conflict of interests out of the way so that somebody can be sentenced.
And I'm not saying for sure that the accusations are accurate. I'm not taking that step. I am simply saying that you don't get jail for the guilty until impeachment is first accomplished, or loss of election, whichever.
@ShaunBurch it doesn't sound like this is discriminating based on someone's language.
Rather, this is based on the person receiving additional value, at a cost to the supplier, regardless of what languages they may or may not be able to speak.
If it costs more to supply the service the choices are to pass that cost over to everyone or to charge extra to the one who receives extra value from the additional service.
It has nothing to do with the someone's language since the other factors are the same regardless.
@bespacific that's a misrepresentation of what Bush v Gore actually said, though.
If you read the ruling, BvG was mainly about kicking down a lower court that had interfered in the democratic process. After all, SCOTUS was an appellate court in that case, as it normally is.
As a court of appeals, SCOTUS wasn't responding directly to the fight between Bush v Gore but was rather responding to the errand rulings of courts below.
This sort of thing is so critical to understanding the US legal system, but sadly, that understanding is so missing in reporting about current events.
@rivetgeek ... .when I say firstly I'm not comparing them, and then secondly, no really I'm not comparing them, I still have no idea why you're still talking about not comparing them.
@theothersimo no, Steve didn't kick himself out.
@ShaunBurch it depends on the circumstances, what the nature of the discrimination is, but very often--maybe even overwhelmingly often--it is absolutely ethical to be discriminatory.
Let the ambulance go first, discriminating in favor of medical care.
Let the starving person get first shot at the food aid, discriminating against the folks who are already fed.
And on and on.
Discrimination is only a tool, a way of treating different people differently, which is SO OFTEN entirely ethical and appropriate, even if in other cases it's not.
All too often people throw out the tool instead of looking at how it's being used.
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:
