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
@techno well it might have been taste in addition to cost.
@WataruTenkawa@vivaldi.net
@SarahBreau I'll link to the case again if you'd like to read it. Yes, there has been a ton of misreporting and misunderstanding about this case.
SCOTX stressed that it was up to doctors, not courts, to determine whether an abortion was medically necessary. If the doctor found that it was then the court wouldn't have any legal authority to consider her in violation.
And the court tried to emphasize this over and over again. Another quick example:
"If Ms. Cox’s circumstances are, or have become, those that satisfy the statutory exception, no court order is needed."
As of the time of the ruling Cox had already left the state, so for her personally it was moot, but we should be emphasizing this ruling as it highlighted that doctors and not courts are to make these decisions.
@moxxi well currently users have fairly few and blunt tools for shaping their #Mastodon experiences at best, even setting aside vulnerability to bad actors.
You can follow others, which you have to seek out and then process in totality; you can check out local/public instance feeds, which can be a lot of noise to signal; you can follow hashtags, relying on authors to shape what you see by how they use tags; etc.
But all of those are clunky and don't let the user easily refine their feeds.
In fact, they tend to give others a lot of control over what goes into the firehose, to be directed at the user: the followed feed, the instance, or the hashtag author.
In the end, users are faced with all or nothing choices instead of finer controls over how they'd like to shape their feeds.
@jrm4 but again, since they're independent platforms providing different user experiences that better serve different user bases, I don't think the popularity comparison is very meaningful.
If the Meta user experience is better at serving more users, even while the Fediverse user experience is better at serving others, then great! Meta SHOULD be more popular since that means more users better served.
And yet that popularity comparison doesn't in any way take away from Fediverse serving us.
Let each platform serve their users the best regardless of how those numbers compare.
That's how to get the most users the best experiences.
The question was framed as charging extra for Spanish support, which I took to mean that Spanish support was an option, not the main language of the platform.
So with the framing of the question, one's getting a value-add option.
@lydiaconwell exactly.
Since it's a general instance it's likely to avoid making non-technical decisions for its users, as it'll be shooting for the greatest common denominator of users' wants.
@AnneTheWriter1 as you say, instances can and do impose blocks, which I think is really important, as it shows that often it's not users but instances curating feeds.
I WISH it was users curating their feeds, but so far that's not been a priority on this platform.
So far users don't have nearly as much control over their feeds as I wish they had.
@moxxi the real lesson to learn is that we need more rigorous user controls than hashtags.
The current approach has always been very vulnerable. We need to evolve into better.
@ParadeGrotesque I suspect Meta has been vacuuming up content for a while now.
Fediverse is a public broadcast system. If they want it, they can largely get it.
@Athavariel@mastodon.sdf.org
@lauren I think it's mainly a symptom of needing to solve hard problems that come with a federated platform.
It's easy to coordinate things like replies when there's a central database that they all go into, but distributed systems intentionally lack such centralization.
Therefore, people used to the behaviors of centralized systems are sometimes surprised when the distributed system doesn't behave the same way.
The Mastodon user experience could do a better job helping users think differently about how it works, though.
@lauren you CAN reply to the original post. That's the whole point.
Just as blocked users can reply to original posts today.
Same thing.
@lauren governmental interference in Fediverse is a different matter than Threads, though.
@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.
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:
