volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@OrionFed@mas.to well it might do the opposite, encouraging local governments to adjust to more sustainable, more efficient ways of raising revenues and budgeting.

No need to delay a building permit if you're not desperate to inflate fees charged to the applicant because you need to install a stoplight on the other side of town.

That sort of city funding really shouldn't be based on one time fees in the first place.

@thomasfuchs kind of like referring to a hospital as a building that consumes a lot of electricity.

Kind of buries the lede.

@weberam2 sounds like you might want to check the eternal war between ESR and RMS especially since (as I recall) the intersection of business and open source was/is one of the major points of contention between the two philosophies.

In other words, you might find that debate particularly relevant because it directly questions whether opensource actually is the opposite of business in the first place, with lots of discussion on both sides.

@theceoofanarchism@kolektiva.social when it comes to court cases and Supreme Court cases in particular the details are vital.

The Court rules on specific questions, and those specific rulings are what lower courts use in future proceedings, and what lawmakers can address if we need to have laws changed.

Let me emphasize, it's not a question about whether *the law* is cruel and unusual. That's not the question before the Court, and the Court generally doesn't make such rulings.

The question is whether certain *enforcement actions* are unconstitutional.

One big reason this distinction matters is because it speaks to similar enforcement actions regardless of which laws they may (or may not) be based on.

You see how the different in the question can really matter?

@FuckElon it's like asking who's going to stop Trump from flying from city to city merely by flapping his arms like a bird.

It's not possible. Who's going to stop him? Reality.

Trump doesn't have the option of being a dictator. Nobody needs to stop the guy from doing something he can't do anyway.

@uspolitics

@jupiter_rowland oh it's even "worse" than @mikedev indicates.

A basic design choice of the Fediverse protocol is that ANY content that leaves the origin instance goes into a wild west where nobody has technical ownership of the content, period.

As Mike said, you can delete content from your own instance, no matter where the content came from, but you have no way to require anyone else to delete the content from theirs.

So even if you start a thread, don't like how it's going, and then decide to delete it, you have no way to enforce the deletion. The thread is free to continue on other instances.

Basically, you can send out a deletion request, but nobody else has to respect the request.

And BTW this gets even worse when considering that the privacy control is similarly just a request. A key element of the protocol is that nobody has to respect post privacy controls.

@smach right, but that's my point: so much of what we call news is really, effectively, just entertainment at best, that's being labeled as news.

It reminds me of hearing an NPR station doing a funding drive where the hosts kept emphasizing that listening to NPR just makes them FEEL informed. They really stressed that phrasing for some reason.

So news stations focus on things like Iowa and NH because those stories create compelling--if misleading--narratives that get attention and make people feel certain ways.

It's really unfortunate, but when so much journalism is effectively mere entertainment, well that causes all sorts of bad things in society. We see the longterm impacts of that every day.

@nprpolitics

@theceoofanarchism@kolektiva.social that's a misframing of the question before the Court, though.

The issue before the Court is NOT whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter, but rather (as the public record shows)
> The question presented is:
> Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

@bobby115

You can read at the link below.

Basically, a city had an ordinance against camping on public property, then the 9th Circuit ruled that the Eighth Amendment blocked that ordinance, and the city appealed to SCOTUS for clarification about whether the 8th actually prevents it from applying the ordinance.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-175/275911/20230823153037814_Grants%20Pass%20v.%20Johnson_cert%20petition_corrected.pdf

@Nonilex

@jupiter_rowland and this is exactly why we need to focus on empowering users and not admins, so that users can shape their own experiences without relying on that complicated dance of admins that may never really result in a satisfactory outcome.

Empower users.
So that they don't have to rely on all of these other structures to shape their experiences for them.

You could say it's why so many of us left the big platforms in the first place.

@uspolitics since he doesn't have that option we should be calling him out for being a moron, not for being the strong man that potential voters actually want.

@dogweapon consent issues, for one.

@jackwilliambell ... we see every day with our own eyes that the computational issues were solved.

You're just gaslighting at this point since we can see for ourselves that what you're hanging your hat on doesn't exist.

@rbreich much of the funding hasn't even been spent yet, so this is clearly false.

@kithrup when you're pretty much pulling numbers out of thin air they can be whatever you want them to be.

@rbreich

@liztai it's really something how folks are so proud of judging books by their covers.

These days it seems like people will even take pride engaging in standards of logical fallacy, to be clear not just presenting bad arguments but actually playing out the standard examples of fallacious reasoning used to warn against it for generations.

@lauren keep in mind that different people have different ideas about how they wish to be treated.

What one person perceives as disdain another perceives as respect.

Keep in mind that other people might have the exact opposite wants in these situations, and one can't assume that everyone else would want the same treatment.

It sounds like an awful lot of people fall into that trap on topics like this.