volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@hulavikih only if Biden moves to impose such a penalty.

It's all up to the president.

@NewsDesk *by the Biden administration

It's worth highlighting that.

@thisismissem well I wouldn't phrase it that way as "recommended" brings in the subjective.

it would be fair to warn people that, "This instance is included in blocklists so be aware that its reach is to some extent limited" or "be aware that its feeds may not reach as much of the fediverse"

Sure, inform people, but a recommendation for someone who cares about such reach will be different from someone who doesn't.

Some people may even prefer a less-integrated experience.

@Ronial rich people?

I don't know a single rich person participating in Bitcoin. I think they probably have better things to do with their time. Lounging by the pool or whatever.

The people I know participating in Bitcoin are the ones who don't have it all, who can use the system to scrape by a little better.

It seems there ISN'T a better way to do things, or else people would be doing that other thing.

Bitcoin simply provides more value to its users, or else they wouldn't use it.

@6G@mastodon.social but that's not how Congress works.

Firstly, the rules of the Senate don't give any senator, including McConnell, the power to unilaterally stop anything. At any point the rest of the chamber could overrule him if they wanted to.

The fingerpointing at McConnell was always a way of scapegoating that allowed senators to escape accountability for their inaction.

Well, that and a way for reporters to publish clickbait headlines.

But the idea of Congress blocking legislation overall? No. If legislation isn't compelling then it's not Congress blocking it, but Congress simply saying it's not something they're interested in passing.

@drrjv

@fonecokid well, it's more that the job of SCOTUS is to serve the law, not justice.

They are generally a court of appeal, and that many levels up the judicial system it's by design more about making sure laws were followed than judging justice itself.

In fact, that's part of the protection against evil justices being on the bench. They don't have so much authority to judge justice.

@Ronial you're overlooking the people participating in Bitcoin because they see it as providing such value and reason that they're willing to trade significantly larger amounts of energy to trade for it.

Those folks--and there are a ton of them--certainly find reason for being outside of destroying the planet.

@stig exactly.

Corporations are the wrong place to look for morality or compassion.

This sort of thing is a job for other parts of society, charities, governments, etc.

Otherwise it's a conflict of interest looming.

@shac

@actualham it's worth highlighting that according to the story the US will be enforcing non-competition based on falsified patent applications.

The US will be actively blocking others from competing on price.

That's the part that I think more need to consider.

@CStamp I mean, are you sure there WASN'T such a contract? I didn't see mention of it in the article.

I would be 0% surprised to hear that this is exactly what all parties expected and intended.

@actualham

@talleraas well, talking about Mastodon specifically, I think it's about the same, which brings up a hobby horse of mine:

Mastodon simply doesn't offer users very powerful tools for them to tailor their own experiences. Hashtag filtering and user following are so rudimentary and even problematic

If users had better tools then things might get better, but until then I'd expect it to be pretty stagnant.

The same old hashtag filtering will just get you to the same old types of content, supporting echo chambers, and generally leaving things stuck.

@mk what you've written above is RIFE with speculation!

@Nudhul @freemo

@mk even if for the sake of argument we run with your claims of vast conspiracy, what Trump did wrong was to adopt strategies that played into those instead of countering them.

Great, the public is subject to vast amounts of social control? Well what Trump did wrong was in his failure to counter that.

@J12t@social.coop yeah, I wouldn't be looking for One Single Vision in a system that's federated and ideally distributed.

So many people came here exactly to get away from that kind of thinking.

What are we building? More like whats are we building, if that pluralization makes any sense.

We're building many different things.

@joesabin@mastodon.world ha, we don't have such standardization to have such rules and overruling.

That's my opinion and my practice, so take it for exactly what you paid for it :)

Lots of people do it differently? Sure, of course they do.
@dave

@talleraas sadly, to me, so many people on this platform that talk about freedom from platforms that they've left are also quite explicit about demanding an echo chamber.

It's not all light and goodness here. Some portray it that way, though.

There's so much hate on my feeds here, and people pumping each other up to amplify the hatrid instead of pausing to reexamine their beliefs about the world.

@tsyum but that's exactly what the Supreme Court said, that officials do seem confused about what constitutes violence, so legally they need to go work that out before it can be further addressed by the courts.

In this case the claim is that an "individual threw a piece of concrete or a similar rock-like object, striking respondent Officer Doe in the face. Officer Doe suffered devastating injuries in the line of duty, including loss of teeth and brain trauma."

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to consider that violent and consider how it would be handled under the state law, independent of anything involving protest.

So yep, SCOTUS said to go back and figure out some of the confusion about violence.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/mckesson-v-doe.pdf

@SirBemrose imagine not realizing that claims of deepstate are thrown around to explain anything the claimer doesn't want to hear, to the point that apparently pretty much the whole country must be involved in that conspiracy, except that one person.

I guess they're just lonely?

Have you considered that when the public basically IS the deepstate, based on how vast the conspiracy claims must be, then the will of the public is the will of the deepstate, since they're the same people?

Now if you'll pardon me, I need to go laminate my deepstate membership card. The line at the deepstate coffee shop was too long this morning so I had to put it off.

@mk @freemo