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
But it comes down to a matter of fact. You can see that regulations are not immutable if you go check out the history of the CFR or regulations.gov or check out the various laws regarding the updating of federal regulations.
There is an enormous amount of legal framework providing for the mutability of federal regulations. That's the whole point, the whole reason this is an issue in the first place.
@chiraag No I'm not telling you there are neutral actors here.
I don't know where you got that.
I'm telling you that there are actors offering positive options, for their own self-interest of course, but the options they are offering are still positive.
Far from neutral, they are offering ways for a person to better their lives.
That is factually what's going on.
@nicholas_saunders under Chevron, as we've seen, precious little.
That's one major real world problem that we've seen in application, each president feeling free to change effective law unilaterally, without needing any consultation with the elected Congress.
@itnewsbot the Ars article is missing that without that deference the Network Neutrality policy might not have been allowed in the first place, so Pai wouldn't have had anything to reverse.
It really was a live by the sword, die by the sword situation.
The bad idea that allowed the policy change is the one that allowed the policy in the first place, and it all highlights why it Chevron needs to be left behind.
@bespacific no, that's not quite right.
Chevron does not say courts have that power. They only have the power to call out the president when executive interpretations clearly exceed limits on presidential power.
The courts still don't get to come up with novel interpretations the way Chevron provides to the president.
@eriner I think you lost the thread at "post-Constitutional America"
Once you get to that point jury trials probably don't matter anyway.
@manton I would want to separate style from semantics and perhaps have both #markdown and facets.
There's a difference between "I want this to be bold" vs "This is a hyperlink." One expresses an author's intended or requested presentation while the other codifies meaning, leaving the reader's client to Do The Right Thing for the client's situation.
In a way it's what the author wants vs what the user needs.
And a natural benefit of this is not having to worry about straining markdown with new, semantic stuff like spoiler alerts.
@nicholas_saunders the point is that presidents don't and shouldn't have the authority to make such administrative interpretations in the first place, bypassing the democratic system.
Heck, your two issues are related: a president might appeal to Chevron deference to support his claim of authority to bomb foreigners.
After all, there are regulations regarding the use of military force, and it's a problem that presidents would be able to just interpret restrictions away.
@chiraag and no employer is shoving poison pills down anyone's throat.
Fine, complain about the system if you want, but that's not the employer.
The employer is offering nothing but an escape from the bad situation that you're identifying.
The employer isn't making a threat. They are only offering an escape from the threat.
@Weedkiller
This is critically missing that US agencies aren't particularly bound to scientifically driven, technologically sound regulation.
In fact, with deference agencies can go the other way, moving AGAINST exactly those things.
A HUGE reason for tightening down deference rules is specifically to protect good regulations from political interference.
After all, there's a reason for the "Chevron" in Chevron deference.
@micchiato@mastodon.social yeah, it always strikes me as backwards to, out of concern that a fascist might interfere with your speech, to silence oneself entirely.
Seems like it gives him the win, in that storyline.
I don't personally buy into that narrative, but from the outside looking in, it seems foolish to leave Twitter and give up that voice, even if one regards that voice as threatened.
@PeterLudemann the example I have in mind was basically person in the street, except lazier since the reporter didn't actually have to go on the street or conduct an interview.
They just read out posts to Facebook from folks without any of their own first hand knowledge of the situation.
And to be clear: they read it as fact, not opinion.
As I recall someone was shot, the police announced that they'd arrested a suspect after a car chase, and BBC was ignoring that to instead relay what was effectively gossip as to who the perpetrator was.
Yeah, I could cut a little slack if potential biased statistics were involved--there's fog of war there, so to speak--but not in this sort of case.
But I hear respected news outfits doing this kind of thing all the time, misreporting matters of basic fact and appearing to echo man-on-the-street stories that happen to be misinformed.
@lauren
Just because a choice is unlikely to be taken doesn't mean it's not a choice.
As for coercion, which I and Oxford would say say involves threat or force, it's key here that there is on threat or force involved in an employment offer, so no coercion.
The employer offers a chance to improve one's lot.
If, as you say, no one would choose to pass that offer, that just highlights how valued it must be.
@chiraag It is a fair and free choice!
A person is free to choose.
And heck, if the work environment is so bad then I would encourage the person to start their own enterprise, where they would easily attract the talent that is being so mistreated elsewhere.
At that point it's a win-win.
@PeterLudemann My favorite example was listening to BBC reporting in their news break what officials said about a shooting, and then immediately after hearing their normal programming reading off social media posts that were contradicted by the official report they had just broadcast.
Official investigations had found one thing, but never mind that, let's broadcast dramatic tales that we are reading off of Facebook!
I hear that kind of thing all the time from BBC.
@maccruiskeen Well that's simply not factually true.
Yes a lot of special interest groups try to promote that idea, but it's not true.
@lauren but none of that changes that we elect and re-elect these same people, showing that we approve of the way they have been operating in office.
Like, yeah we can make all the excuses that we want for what they are doing but at the end of the day, we are re-electing these people.
I think we should not be re-electing these people. I think that we should hold them accountable for what they have done and not get distracted by these side stories, but that's just me.
For example, if you want to say that some politician is taking bribes but we re-elect that politician, the problem there isn't the bribe the problem is that we reelected the person taking the bribes.
We really need to stop re-electing the same politicians doing bad things, and I think we really need to focus on that and not let them pass the buck.
@maccruiskeen I mean they would say comply with the law...
@parismarx
@lauren again my point is that we elected those people. And we re-elected those people. So apparently we were okay with it.
It all comes down to we get the government that we vote for.
@lauren I think that you are missing that all of what you are referring to is rooted in the people that we voted to empower to government.
It's not about AT&T.
They are merely complying with the situation that we all voted for, the regulations that were promulgated based on our votes.
Lied? No I don't think so. I have watched over and over again when the people that we voted into power, elected and re-elected, set up the incentives for them to do exactly what they did.
And let me emphasize re-elected. We keep re-electing the people who set the stage for this, so apparently we are happy with it.
I think we should stop re-electing these people, but I'm in the minority here, and I really think we should emphasize that we should stop re-electing the officials who put us into situations that we don't like.
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:
